glg thank you, mr. president. good morning, everyone. it is a beautiful morning, but i detected very early a hint of autumn in the air. i don't know if you did. you may have seen recently, as i did, a "new york times" article about a sylvan bucolic renaissance throwback to another century, the 19th century, in fact, when families from new york and ohio and pennsylvania and the canadian provinces and elsewhere came to spend a bit of the summer to restore themselves in a place called cha tack qua. and the article described -- chi tack qua. and the article described what qua so unique, at least for me, the spirit of philosophy, the thing that makes life really special and meaningful. it was a great contribute, this

article, to what generations of the people have done to build this amphitheater and this extraordinary campus. the only surprise for me in this article was the revelation that there are now several chataquas in the united states. i had not realized that, and that's a measure of the success of your brand, because all of us know this is the true place, the mother ship. [applause] so i wanted to start this morning by paying tribute. the reality tv rush hour-free zone, which is one of its appeals. now, i can't claim and i am not a true native chataquan like many of you, that go back four, five, seeven six generations. in fact, i grew up outside of boston, massachusetts. i am a patriots fan. admittedly behind enemy lines

here in buffalo bills territory. but i was born in buffalo general hospital. so, mr. president, i'd like to apply again for citizenship in chaw tack qua nation. -- chautauqua nation. i'm pleased to be discussing diplomacy. i'm glad that chautauqua has decided to spend some time talking about this venerable art, sometimesis understood, stiemsma lined, but always important as diplomacy. i'm a former career american diplomat. i served five presidents between my first job. i was the lowest ranking person in the u.s. government. i was an intern at our ambassador in mauritania in west africa in 1980. until my last job as undersecretary of state in 2008. and you now have the privilege of teaching diplomacy to

students from all over our country, in fact, from all over the world. we have 90 different countries represented at harvard university at our kennedy school of government. so i teach for a living. so i thought, why not start with a question for you this morning that you can think about. and when we get to the "q&a," maybe give me a sense of what the answer is. what do you think about when you hear the word "diplomacy"? it's not a trick question. what images does it conjure up, diplomacy? what values do we attach to it? there may be a pop quiz that i give you in the q&a session. but when i ask that question people invariably will say to me, well, diplomats are rather formal, stuffy people in tall hats and mourning suits, they live in gilded palaces, they talk ad nauseam about the problems of the world, but they may not get much of anything done. hear that from time to time

as people describe the career that i had. that's certainly one true image, if you think about the formal nature of it. think about the 19th century, think about busy marc, think about the congress of berlin in 1878, that was true. mediate the turkish rue so war. think about woodrow wilson, indeed in a tall hat and mourning coat at the versailles peace conference in 1919 with his open covenants, openly arrived at, his 14 points, trying to create a better world after the first world war. but that's antique diplomacy. we live in the 21st century and diplomats today come from 195 member states of the united nations. they look and often act quite differently than woodrow wilson and bismarck. happily, a lot of diplomats now, a lot more, are women. men used to dominate this field like most fields in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

and while americans and europeans were the dominant diplomats of 100 years ago, now we have nations rising to global power in asia, in the middle east, in africa and in latin america. sometimes from countries that didn't exist in the world of empire, in the colonial world of 1913, 100 years ago, and 1914 at the start of the first world war. diplomats today represent governments, as they always have, but they also represent international institutions like the united nations. you fly the flag of the united nations here at chautauqua. they represent international institutions like the world bank and the international monetary fund. and i even think people who work for nonprofit organizations, who are dedicated to combating poverty, who want to promote economic development, who are promoting health care, who are trying to promote peace, i think they're diplomats too,.

so in that vein think of bill and melinda gates and the enormously positive impact those two people and their foundation are ching on the fight against live aids, the fight to eradicate polio, which is nearly complete. only three countries in the world where polio exists these days. think of the champion figure skater michelle kwan. you saw her in the olympics. she's joined the state department part-time as a sports emissary for the state department, as has cal ripken, the former great bowler shortstop. -- baltimore oriole shortstop. so diplomacy today is far more diverse and inclusive as an enterprise than it was 100 years ago. and traditional diplomacy, as the oxford dictionary will tell you, the management of international relations by negotiation. that's a very precise definition. it tells you a lot about diplomacy. but here's another way to think about diplomacy. it's actually everything that

all of us do. 7 billion people in 195 countries, to manage relations around the world among countries and among people, to negotiate, to interpret each other, to translate through languages and cultural and religious and philosophical differences and to buffer relations among states that might not like each other very much and that might collide from time to time. that's a critical job. to make the countries in the world, in a nutshell, work together more efficiently and more profitably and hopefully and most importantly, more peacefully. diplomacy thus embodies the widest spectrum of international activities. so last week, a week ago today, when you saw our secretary of state john kerry open negotiations in washington between the israelis and palestinians, that's diplomacy.

and when president obama and russian president vladimir putin and the chinese president meet in st. petersburg, as i think they will in a couple of weeks to talk about economic global problems, well, that, too, is diplomacy. and when president bush and president obama negotiated one by one free trade agreements between the united states and colombia and panama, that's economic diplomacy. when nations meet to fight climate change and try to eradicate trafficking of women and children and try to fight global drug and crime cartels, that's multi-lateral diplomacy. and when we move tons -- hundreds and thousands of tons of food aid to poor country where people are starving, like north korea, that's humanitarian diplomacy. so diplomacy encompasses those thousands of actions taken each day by governments like ours, by international organizations like the u.n., by nonprofit

organizations like the gates foundation, to connect, connect countries, connect regions, connect towns around the world, connect, most importantly, people around the world, because we do live in a very small, very vulnerable, sometimes violent and often dispew occasion just planet. in this sense i found in my years in the state department in the white house that diplomacy is really about hope. it's the great hope that all of us have in every country that we don't have to accept the status quo. that we can actually overcome sometimes, not always, differences that separate people and sometimes lead them to fight each other in cataclysmic wars, hope that we can improve and change for good the human condition, and that the powerful -- that's a powerful aspiration.

i never imagined actually when i was growing up in wellesley, massachusetts, outside of boston, that i'd become a diplomat. actually, what i really wanted to do was to be shortstop for the boston red sox. [laughter] like every other kid in new england in the 1960's and 1970's. but it finally dawned on me around the age of 15 that baseball career wasn't going to work out. i couldn't hit the curveball. and i found my calling in a very different, very strange place called the vietnam war. now, i was too young to serve. i turned 17 the day the cease-fire was announced on january 28, 1973. i remember the church bells ringing in my hometown of wellesley. jubilation that that divisive and frustrating and terrible war was coming to a close, at least for the united states. and i had seen, as did many of you, how our young men who

served bravely and honorably were not always welcomed back to our towns with the dignity and honor that was certainly their due. vietnam, as a lot you have will remember, ripped the threads of our country, the threads that connect 50 states together, that connect our families together and our generations. and even with my admittedly limited teenaged perspective -- i didn't know much when i was 17 years old -- i could grasp, as most people could, the incongress youthy that a superpower like ours had become involved in a civil war halfway around the world with a poorer nation that did not represent a true strategic threat to us. now, that's admittedly how it appears now today with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight and the passage of 40 years since that cease-fire in 1973. but vietnam burst my interests

in diplomacy, and given myla meantable and rudimentary grasp of world geography, i had to consult an atlas to find out where it was on the map. when i began to be conscious of the fact that our young men were fighting in a place called vietnam back then. and then came the inevitable question that i suppose came to every american who was alive and conscious at that time -- why did we fight a people we actually knew so little about? was it right? was it smart? how will we extricate ourselves from a war that we fought with one arm tied behind our back, like a frustrated gulliver, and was there a better way, a different way for america to act and america to lead in the world? and like so many others in my generation, vietnam really was the impetus that opened up the world to us, even though i never got there. i didn't serve. but it came right into our hometowns and it forced us to look beyond the atlantic and

acific and to appreciate that's a complicated world. when you go into that china shop you got to be careful when you throw your weight around. 40 years later vietnam still recalls for me the ultimate purpose of diplomacy, and that's what we're looking at this week at chautauqua. can we work amicably with other countries, with other religions, with other people? what's the best way to avoid the war and conflict that we've seen in our country over the last 10 years? are we capable of meeting the biblical challenge? and it's an important one for all of us, no matter what our faith is, to reflect upon, can we deliver peace among the nations? because that's our job, all of us who live here on earth. and we know in our hearts that it may never be possible. as the ancient greeks put it,

it may never be possible, they said, to tame the savageness of man. but we know that we have to try. and our path can be illuminated by a phrase robert kennedy used in his brief and tragic run for the presidency in 1968. he said that one of the purposes of our country must be -- and these are tennyson's words, the british poet, alfred lord tennyson -- to seek a new you are world, to seek a newer world from the broken world that we had inherited after those trials and tribulations of the 1960's. and that's not very different from some of the challenges that we inherit here in 2013. so for me, that's the ultimate promise of diplomacy, a newer and better world and hopefully, if we're lucky and smart, a more peaceful world. so chautauqua was right to bring us together this week to talk about this subject and to focus on the problems of 2013.

and when you think about our situation right now, just think about the time since 9/11. it's been a difficult and violent 12 years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought down the symbol of our economic power on wall street, collided with the symbol and reality of our military power, the pentagon in washington, and shook the foundations of our country. in response, we came out swinging. we invaded two muslim countries. we fought two bitter and bloody wars in both places. we paid an enormous price in the lives of our soldiers, in treasure and sometimes in global credibility. we also did some good things. and you reflect on what the american military and our people were able to accomplish in iraq and especially in afghanistan in rebuilding schools and giving now 9

million young kids a chance to go to school in afghanistan, when barely 1 million were going to school on september 10, 2001. we've done some good things as well in both countries. but our experience in iraq and afghanistan can provide a unique perspective about the value of diplomacy and how americans ought to think about the world as we go forward. the thing about us -- and we all know it -- is we're so powerful compared to everybody else. if you compare our military, for instance, to the 10 next strongest countries in the world combined, we're still more powerful. and so there's a temptation in washington -- and i've succumbed to it myself -- sometimes to default to the military to meet the most difficult international challenges. when our presidents have to decide -- and it's a big question -- do we fight other countries or do we talk to them

to resolve our problems, sometimes the use of force can appear faster, cleaner, more efficient, more direct as a way to accomplish a problem. diplomacy, by contrast, can move at a glacial pace and it requires infinite patience. but remember that patience and virtue -- patience and restraint, excuse me, are virtues. a veteran, george mitchell, i was with him a couple of weeks ago tells a great story that illustrates the importance of patience when you go around the world and interact with other countries. he was our negotiator for president clinton in northern ireland and he met with a lot of frustrations. and he said about his experience, he said, "i experienced 700 days of failure and one day of success." the day he was finally able to secure the good friday agreement that brought peace to northern ireland.

700 days of failure and one day of success. so when people say that secretary kerry you're never going to resolve the israeli-palestinian crisis, i think of george mitchell. it may take us 7,000 days of failure, but there will be a day when someone is able to pull those two together into peace, and it will have been worth it because we'll have been patient and we won't have resorted to some other alternative that gets us into a lot of trouble. so there are times, of course, when diplomacy is not the answer. it's not a panacea. there are times when the use of force is both necessary and even just. as president obama reminded us in his nobel prize speech in december of 2009. f.d.r. was right to use force against hitler, mussolini and imperial japan to stop them and win the second world war, president clinton used military force to stop two wars and save

the muslim populations of bosnia and kosovo. most people would agree, not everybody, but a lot of people would agree that president bush, george w. bush, was obligated to strike back against al qaeda after september 11, 2001. we were attacked, and we had to respond. and i think that most people would say that president obama the very right to launch azeinab badawi race that killed osama bin laden. history and diplomacy co-exist. they interact with each other and they sometimes can complement each other. richard holbrooke, the late richard holbrooke, great american diplomat, i don't think he would have been able to secure the peace in bosnia had we not used force for six weeks to demonstrate to the bosnian-serb army that we were not going to permit them to continue to kill innocent muslims. and it was that use of force that achieved the cease-fire

and drove them to the negotiating table where holbrook worked his magic and brought peace to bosnia after five years of war. so there are times when we have to rely on our military and we're fortunate, as all of you know, to have extraordinary young men and women in our military and the army and the navy and the air force, marines and the coast guard and the national guard. [applause] and, like you, who just applauded, i admire the american military. they are absolutely critical to our security. one of the proudest moments of my career was when i served as u.s. ambassador to nato. that's a joint state department-defense department mission. i actually had more military people on my staff than i did diplomats. and i went into the field and i saw our military in afghanistan and saw them in kosovo and saw them in bosnia and was so impressed by how competent and

professional and sincere they were about representing us in those very difficult battlegrounds. so the military is not the problem, but the problem is that we're merging from more than a decade of war. the two longest wars in our history. and we chose to fight them for good or ill simultaneously. and we discovered in both places an age-old truth, i'm going to pa practice phrase churchill here, that when you start a war you really have no idea when and how that war is going to come to a close. and we in the u.s. government -- and i served in 2001 at nato on 9/11 -- we had no idea that our troops would still be in afghanistan 12 years after they arrived in october, 2001. we had no idea and didn't even remotely consider that we'd stay eight years in iraq. and that's the major reason that president george w. bush

and secretary of state condoleezza rice in the second bush term, they really turned towards diplomacy in our foreign policy and it's why president obama, in his five years in office, has had an abiding impulse that we need to lead with diplomacy, not lead with the military international affairs. we can see now looking back on it -- [applause] we can really see looking back on it that we ask too much of our military. i have a lot of young military officers in my class at harvard. they come for a one-year masters degree program. i'll sit down with them one-on-one to get to know them. invariably i'll say to a colonel or a major and sometimes a captain, what have you done over the last 10, 12 years? invariably they'll list four or five combat tours in iraq and afghanistan. it's the most intensively deployed military in u.s.

history and what nerve's done is spectacular. but we have asked them to do an awful lot. we were right, in my view, to fully fund the military since 9/11. but what we did was we deprived the state department and the u.s. agency of national development of funds and there is, as a result, an enormous gap between the size and power of the pentagon and the size and power of the state department. i'll i will straight it with two little examples from bob gates, who was an outstanding secretary of defense for president bush and president obama. he gave a brilliant speech a couple of years ago and here are two of the nuggets. secretary gates -- "we have more military personnel in one carrier battle group, united states navy, more military personnel in one carrier battle group than we have american diplomats all over the world." here's another, if that doesn't convince you. "we have more members of the armed forces marching bands of the navy, air force, army, marines -- true fact -- than american diplomats."

and i love music, but that tells you a lot about our priorities. so we're at a moment here in 2013, we reflect now on iraq and afghanistan, on 9/11. we've got to return to diplomacy as the primary way that we interact with the rest of the world. it doesn't mean we forget the military. we honor them. but as colin powell said, and remember, he was both secretary of state and a career military officer. he was chairman of the joints chiefs of staff. colin powell used to say the proper way for the united states to position its assets in the world is diplomats on point, in front, military in reserve. in other words, we exhaust diplomacy before we ask the military to go in. that's colin powell. well, after 9/11 we reversed that maxim. we chose war as the primary way to respond to that terrible day, and it worked for a time.

as i said before, i think the initial invasion of afghanistan was necessary. but ultimately it didn't work out as we had planned. now, the founding fathers recognized this tension between force and diplomacy. they recognized it was going to be vital for presidents to figure this out in a balanced way and to picture this -- maybe don't do it right now because we're asked to turn off our cell phones. but when you leave here, google the great seal of the united states. everybody knows what the great seal is. it's on every official document, it's on our passports, it's on every federal building. remember, it's the eagle, right? it's e pluribus unum. and the eagle has in its talons 13 colonies, arrows, to defend ourselves, and an olive branch in the other talon. it signifies our commitment to be a peaceful country.

and in that sense the great seal of the united states is a perfect metaphor for the natural tension and the difficulty that all of our presidents have in trying to decide, how do we react when bad things happen to us and to other people around the world? there are times when we must defend themselves and use those arrows. and there are times when we have to have a way of looking towards peace and of negotiating with other countries, and that's the olive branch. the first job of the president is to defend the country. but he or she -- we can always hope for the future -- [applause] he or she must use our great power to be a peacemaker, too. president kennedy gave a memorable speech, i think his greatest speech, 50 years ago this june, 1963 at the american

university in washington, d.c. it was entitled "a strategy for peace." you will find a book by jeff sax in the chautauqua book store that talks about this particular speech. here's what president kennedy said about this tension. he said, "what kind of peace do we seek? not a pax americana enforced on the world by american weapons of world. not the peace of the grave or the security of the slaves, but a genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, not merely peace in our time, but peace in all time." kennedy had come to believe by 1963 that after the bay of pigs, after the cuban missile crisis, he said, "we have no more urgent task than a strategy for peace." now, we know that a complete and perfect peace is unattainable given the imperfect nature of who we are as human beings.

but in its pursuit and the pursuit of peace we also know that we will find our best and our true selves. so we have to invest in diplomacy, especially now at a time when the global balance of power is shifting, when the united states, despite our enormous strengths, can no longer call the shots and can no longer act alone in the world. many of the most complex threats that we face -- and if we went around this room in one minute, we could list them all. in 2013, climate change. trafficking of human beings. crime and drug cartels. pandemics, disease, poverty, nuclear proliferation, terrorism. the great majority of those challenges are not going to be resolved by the u.s. military. we're going to have to use our aid workers and our diplomats and our citizens to engage other people and every other country in the world to triumph over them. these are transnational

threats. they affect every country. they are going through our borders and over and under our borders. in that sense there's never been a time in human history like this one when the fate of everybody in this theater is linked to the fate of 7 billion people around the world. climate change affects all of us. poverty and nuclear proliferation affect every human being, every man, woman, child living in the world today. that's what globalization has given us, this incredibly interconnected world. and that means that the united states needs to think smartly about how we act in the world. as i said, we're still, by a long mile, economically, politically, militarily the most powerful country. but we can't resolve a single one of the problems i just mentioned if our slogan to the rest of the world is "it's my way or the highway." are you with me or are you against me? [applause]

so instead i say we have a natural advantage. we canco aless and work with our many -- we can coalesce and work with our many allies. 28 allies in europe and canada and nato and a big alliance system centered on japan and south korea, australia, thailand and the philippines and east asia. we can work with other countries. we can marshal our forces, our thoughts, our aid money, our efforts with those countries, and we have to do it in a way that has us outward looking, not isolationists. there are very conservative republicans and very liberal democrats in washington teaming up essentially to say the united states can no longer afford to be active in the world. we can't resolve every problem. we should bring the troops home. we should dig the moat deeper.

we should pull up the drawbridge around the country. perfect solution for 1813. [laughter] in a non-globalized world, but not for 2013. now, we've also got plenty of examples from our history to know that americans could be effective leaders, can practice diplomacy effectively, and here's some. franklin, jefferson and adams. their diplomacy during the revolution secured our alliance with france and made the great difference in our ability to defeat the british navy and the british army at yorktown and virginia in 1781. jefferson as president used patient diplomacy over several years to negotiate with a guy named napoleon bonaparte. he negotiated the louisiana purchase, which doubled the size of the united states of america in 1804. teddy roosevelt was the first american to win the nobel peace prize because he mediated the

russo-japanese war in 1905. f.d.r.'s wartime diplomacy secured an alliance with churchill and stalin. that was critical in overcoming the axis of powers. president kennedy turned to diplomacy when the great majority of his advisors, in october, 1962, said use force. at the final moment president kennedy brokered a negotiated compromise with our greatest enemy, the soviet premiere nikita khrushchev, and that's how the cuban missile crisis ended and that's why we didn't incinerate hundreds of millions of people on the east coast and the midwest of the united states and in europe and in russia. because diplomacy, rather than force, triumphed. think of henry kissinger, still going strong at age 90, by the way. 40 years ago negotiated his brilliant opening to china that opened up relation that is have been frozen for the last 20 years prior and ensured a

generation of peace between china and the united states. think of president george h.w. bush, bush 41. a lot of people think he was our most accomplished foreign policy president of the last several decades. he had vast experience as a diplomat. he had faith and diplomacy. he achieved the unification of germany and nato after the end of the cold war. he did it peacefully of the he created the modern israeli-palestinian peace process in 1991. he overwhelmed saddam hussein by creating a great international coalition to surround and defeat saddam hussein after his ill-fated invasion of equate in 1991. -- kuwait of 1991. think of president clinton who negotiated the nafta agreement so canada, mexico and the united states would see a rising tide lift all boats through our economic union here in north america. and think of president george w. bush, who had the strategic insight to reach out to india, the largest democracy in the

world, and establish a strategic partnership with india. all that happened through diplomacy, through negotiation, through interaction between our country and those countries. when you think of it, we used diplomacy to end the vietnam war. we used diplomacy to end the cold war, and the israeli-palestinian crisis that will be much discussed this week here at chautauqua someday is going to end, and it will be at a negotiating table with diplomats present. so at its very best -- [applause] at its very best, diplomacy can end wars, it can help us achieve justice. nelson mandela achieved justice. he sat down, when he got out of prison for four years with -- in negotiation. a lot of people in south africa and the national congress said to him fight. he said, i'm going to

negotiate. and he negotiated the destruction of apartheid and he brought all races together in south africa as a diplomat, and he deserves enormous credit at the age of 95 for that extraordinary achievement. [applause] so let me bring this to a close, because i'm anxious to get to your thoughts. and i might even give you that pop quiz. what are some early tests to the united states in 2013 and 2014 as we look ahead? as we look at this balance of diplomacy and force, i'd say there are at least three. number one, can we convince the erratic and isolated north korean leadership that turning back to serious negotiations is a better path than military confrontation that they've been practicing in east asia?

number two, can the obama administration overcome our 34-year isolation from iran and achieve direct negotiations ith president rahanny, who was gnawinged yesterday? can he prevents that country from being a nuclear weapons power? with can he resolve the nuclear dilemma by diplomacy, rather than force of arms? and finally -- and this is probably the most important, especially for anybody under the age of 30 in this audience, because the greatest question is going to be about china and our greatest trial. can the united states find a way to maintain our predominance, our power in asia? because that's good for asia and good for us, while at the same time engaging china diplomatically to keep the peace in that vital region. that's the true test for american diplomacy for the next 50 years. at its best, diplomacy plays to

the strengths of our country. it allows us to create a world based on the slid tee of law and justice. diplomacy can even at its zenith revealed what lincoln evoked so memorably, the better angels of our nature. and as i've reflected on my own career as a diplomat and trying to teach it to students now, i believe it's only through a clear commitment to lead with diplomacy, backed by our great military, that we can begin to address the enormously complicated challenges of the 21st century. we can commit to work peacefully and constructively with china and russia and japan and india and brazil and mexico and south africa and nigeria and germany and the european union. if we can do that and engage those countries, we can write a positive chapter for our

history as we look ahead. in that same speech 50 years ago this summer, president kennedy evoked the global integrated connected world that we know today, and he really spoke up for diplomacy after the cuban missile crisis, when he said the following about how connected we are around the world. he said, "for in the final analysis our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's future and we are all mortal." the united states has proven that we are the strongest country in the world. less us now prove that we are a country that can unit the world around common hopes -- unite the world around common hopes, and in doing so we might go a long way to heal the wounds of these two wars that we're just coming out of and to build the peaceful world that is the

great and elusive dream and has been of every generation. so thank you very, very much for listening to me. and thanks to chautauqua. [applause] >> ok. we'll dive right into the questions. if you have to leave, please do so quietly. there will be people around to collect your questions, or you an just bring them up. would you comment on the cover-up in benghazi? [applause] >> ok. thanks for that softball. i real a it.

[laughter] here's my answer -- i don't see a cover-up in benghazi. [applause] there was a terrible tragedy. four of our best people died, including our ambassador, chris stevens. but what secretary clinton did was appoint a review board led by two people and she said to them look into this. don't pull punches. tell us what happened. tell us where we got it wrong. and she appointed tom, a career diplomat retired, and mike mullen, a former joint chief of staff, two non-political centrist civil servants and they came back with a report that said the state department had made lots of mistakes that we weren't set up to provide adequate security in benghazi for ambassador stevens and his colleagues that day, but they revealed no cover-up. i don't see it. i think most of the controversy

is politically induced. [applause] >> so the question is, what is the role of secrecy in diplomacy? and extended from that, what are your feelings about mr. snowden and the relations between the united states and russia now that he's been granted asylum? >> i thought this was a friendly audience. [laughter] well, you know, i know that -- look, i'm just -- i'll give you what i think. i may be wrong about all this. i think there's a real tension and always has been, but particularly in a globalized, highly integrated internet facade in the society we have now. there's a tension between secrecy and transparency. we know the government has to have some secrets. our national security depends on it.

our nuclear weapons are activated by codes. we don't all have a right to know what those codes are, right? so we've established that the government has a right to some secrecy. and the government might have information about terrorist groups that it can't let the rest of us know about and therefore alert the terrorist groups. the government has a right to some secrets. and all of us who work for the government really do take a solemn vow, and we actually sign a document, i will not divulge these secrets to anybody, and i won't stand on a soapbox and i won't steal the cables and offer them to wikileaks. i won't do it. and i know that if i do something like that, this is the vow we take, i can be tried for having committed a felony. that's what we're talking about here on that side of the ledger. the other side of the ledger is transparency. we're a democracy. we sent the government to washington because we voted for

them and we have a right to know what's happening. and the government does not have a right to know everything we're thinking of doing. and we have a right to privacy. the constitution affords us that right. and here's the tension. and i'm not smart enough truly to figure out sometimes where's the middle ground, where's the balance? and it's probably already shifting, right? it shifts from issue to issue. but on the issue of snowden, i just say this -- i don't see him as a hero. [applause] i truly don't. you know, if he had stayed in the united states and said, you know, as a matter of conscience i will engage in civil disobedience, i will submit myself to the law, that's what martin luther king did to awaken white america and to overcome segregation. he didn't flee to china and russia, martin luther king. he stood here.

daniels ellsberg stood his ground with the vietnam papers in 1971, 1970. snowden fled not to the united kingdom, not to canada, not to mexico, to china and russia. not exactly, you know, democracies, friends of the united states. in he's now accepted asylum author tear yun dictatorial russia. i don't see a hero there. and i think if he came back to the united states he should be put on trial. he's committed felonies. and let the court system judge. [applause] but it's interesting. we were talking earlier today about gridlock in washington. i think that some republicans and democrats are coming together to say -- and here's the other side of the ledger, and i'll end on this -- we don't want the government to know everything we're doing. and the government doesn't have a right to read every email and

listen to every phone call, so, therefore, there is this balance and this national conversation, as president obama has suggested, we've got to have. what's the proper balance between secrecy and privacy and our democratic rights? >> there are -- >> everyone's entitled to their own opinion. >> there are two questions here, but i think by exploring them both, you get a chance, i think, to get at some difficulty questions. the first is, what is the optimum relation between deliberation and action? and the questioner points to the european union being far too deliberate in its process related to bosnia, for example. and the other is, how do you exhaust diplomacy first versus the use of military when you're dealing with a brutal enemy, al qaeda, who has vowed death to

america and recently forced the closings of 22 embassies? >> great questions. you're going to hear bob kagan speak tomorrow who's a good friend of mine, really smart guy. he wrote a book about 10 years ago, and i think the subtitle was "americans are from mars and europeans are from venus." [laughter] and it's a really interesting book. it's on sale at the chautauqua bookstore. basically the point that bob was trying to make -- and actually, bob and i were living in brussels at the same time because his wife, victoria, at that time was my deputy. i was the ambassador of nato. she succeeded me as ambassador of nato. she's a tremendous diplomat. so we're living there. and the big issue of 2002 and 2003 was the united states was acting in a marshal way. i supported the invasion of afghanistan and of iraq in those years. and we were acting in a very aggressive way to go after kithe and the terrorists and

saddam hussein. and the ureps were counseling restraint and -- europeans were counseling restraints and pull back and don't hit so many people. that kind of debate. i was in the middle of that debate defending president bush, as i was happy to do. and bob wrote this book. and it does point to this difference culturally. we have so much military power. it's a very available resource to us. the europeans no longer have the capacity to act militarily, except with us and nato. and so they tend to accentuate their comparative advantage, negotiations, diplomacy, economic assistance. and frankly, we're allies. we work well together and we're pretty good partners, but we do argue from time to time. and i think that the second question is a really important one and it brings out the major theme of what i try to talk about. we need the military. i am not for cutting the military budget to the bone, as some people want to do. we need a strong military because we live in a tough world and we're going to have to call on them again.

i'm sure in the next decade to defend us and defend our interests. but we have exhausted them, and even and especially the generals will be the first people to say we're not always the answer. sometimes you have to send in the diplomats and you have to try to negotiate your way through something. iran, this autumn, might be that example. there are very few people in washington in either political party who believe we ought to go out and just start a war with iran next months. almost everybody in the republican party as well as the democratic party say we've got to give negotiations at least a chance here. now, if you have a slightly more reasonable person in iran, we'll see if he's reasonable and test the proposition. we may have to use force later, if iran heads towards a nuclear weapon, but we don't have to begin there. i think that republicans and democrats can agree on that. but the questioner is right about al qaeda.

what president obama has done is said let's end the two land wars. let's end the military occupations of iraq. afghanistan, most of our troops will be out next summer. but let's continue the war against the terrorist groups in smol ya, yemen, on the gulf and in the afghan-pakistan borders. we need the military for that war and that's where diplomacy and the military are twins, they go hand-in-hand. we need them both and we need to exercise both at the same time. >> so you did figure out how to add a curveball. >> i tried. [laughter] >> so here's another slow pitch. what should be our strategy in syria? [laughter] >> where's the question, are the red sox going to win the world series? that's the one i'm waiting for. [laughter] sorry to say that in an audience of a lot of new yorkers. i know you love the yankees.

sorry about the yankees this year. [laughter] you know, i might have a minority position on searia. i'm going to participate in a debate -- a televised debate on friday in aspen, colorado, and the question we're going to debate is, do we have a dog in the fight? that's james a. baker's very colorful phrase. when he was secretary of state he said we don't have a dog in the fight in bosnia. he said that back in 1991. i think we do have an interest in syria, and i think we've got three. number one, we have a humanitarian interest to help those people. 100,000 syrians dead. [applause] 1.5 million syrians homeless, outside the country, 2-man 5 million people homeless in-- 2.5 million people homeless outside the country. our aid agencies and money, we have to be present to help those people. that's one interest.

second, syria is the keystone country of the middle east. if you look at the map, who are its neighbors? israel, jordan, turkey, iraq. if the civil war in syria continues and spreads and engulfs lebanon or affects israel's northern bored or destabilizes our friend and ally jordan, the situation is much worse. so if you don't act, the situation could get worse. third, and a strategic consideration, who's helping assad, the dictator of syria? the iranians. hezbollah and russia. if that unholy trinity achieves a military victory in syria, and if we lose, turkey loses, jordan loses, israel loses, the palestinians lose, by the way, too, i don't want that signal to be sent in the middle east. i don't want iran ascend dant in the middle east. so we should not put american troops on the ground.

no way. not into that quagmire. but american military aid to the moderate rebel groups, yes, because they'll push back against assad. they'll make the more likely that at some point he's going to collapse and fold and lose power. and that's in our strategic and humanitarian interest. that's how i'd answer the question on syria. [applause] >> so once again, it's not exactly two parts, just a secondary bias to the question. isn't engaging in diplomacy with iran and north korea like expecting lucy not to pull the football away? and then the follow-up to that is, has there been any movement lately toward improving relations with north korea? >> ok. thank you very much. great questions. yeah, i remember lucy and the football. and you know, when you are -- if you're president obama or president bush or president clinton, you've got to be

mindful of that. but i think one of the advantageous aspects of our policy towards iran is that both president obama and president bush have followed a nearly identical policy. the republicans and democrats don't have a lot in common, if you've noticed, in washington these days. [laughter] but they're united to this. and both presidents have very carefully said the following -- a, we're ready to negotiate with you, iran and try to find some reasonable compromise. b, if you don't negotiate successfully with us to our satisfaction, we'll sanction you and c, we reserve the right to use military force. if lucy takes the ball away from charlie brown, if the iranians don't negotiate in good faith and we spend four or five months at the negotiating table, we're still going to have sanctions on them and we're still going to have the right to use military force with we choose to do that. and the israelis will have the same right. because neither of us can

afford to see a nuclear weapon in iran. it is absolutely indefensible and insupportable in the middle east to see iran become a nuclear weapons power. so i say that president obama and president bush have covered a danger of lucy taking the football away. on the second question, the most bizarre government in the world is north korea. i mean, it just is. if you think about it, over the last couple of decades we talked to everybody. we talked to castro's cuba. we talked to hugo chavez when he was president of venezuela. we've talked ep sodcally, fitfully, unsuccessfully with the iranians. we haven't had much of a relationship with the north koreans. it's a mafia-run family dictatorship. the third son previously unemployed, 29 or 30 years old, kim jeung unis now the proud owner of a nuclear weapons force. doesn't make you feel good when you get up in the morning.

and the only way to deal with them is to show strength. so the u.s. and china actually teamed up in march when north korea was shooting rockets off over south korea and japan to say stop. and frankly, the key country in that mix was china, because china has enabled the north koreans for a long time. and finally ping, the new chinese leader what, no uncomfortable and embarrassed by what north korea was doing, they sent them a tough message and we're likely to see this kind of outrageous behavior continue. need to contain that problem. because they have nuclear weapons we don't want to fight them. we don't want to send a nuclear weapon against our ally, the south koreans, or japan, our other ally. but with russia, china, south korea and japan, we can surround and contain north korean power until mercifully one day that regime collapses and hopefully a democratic country is restored in that

part of the korean peninsula. that would be, i think, a sense of what president obama, as president bush was trying to do in north korea. >> so is dennis rodman a diplomat? [laughter] >> you know, in the strangest way, yes. [laughter] my daughter found this show on one of these hundreds of cable tv channels out there that these guys followed dennis rodman to north korea. and it turns out that dennis rodman, basketball player, is the only american who's had a decent conversation with kim jeung un. i guess kim jeung un loves basketball and love the chicago bulls. and who didn't love the chicago bulls when dennis rodman, scottie pippen and michael jordan were playing for them? if that's basketball diplomacy -- if kim jeung un has each the slightest positive view of the

united states because of dennis rodman, we'll brand him a diplomat, dennis rodman. [laughter] >> he certainly has an imagination. what role can diplomacy play in the post-arab spring middle east given the chaotic environment that exists there and also the tendency toward more strict islamic governments? >> i think you're going to see a combination of both diplomacy and the military being the answer for at least how the united states approaches the middle east. we're going to continue to safeguard israel's existence. we should do that. israel's a great friend and it lives in a violent neighborhood. so that's our military aid to israel will continue. interestingly enough, our military aid to egypt must also continue because it was the camp david accords of march of 1979 that jimmy carter mediated that brought together israel and egypt and made for peace in saini. saini is the desert that stands between israel and the major

part of egypt. and the egyptians keeping the peace in saini defends israel's border. so nathan advocate for aid to egypt is the israeli government. they want the egyptian military to be strong because it save gards israel's security. i also think you'll see american military assistance to kuwait, united arab emirates, bahrain and saudi arabia because those countries are absolutely opposed to the buildup of iranian power and their greatest foe of those arab countries is iran. so you'll see a lot of american military activity, military assistance, which i think is positive. but in the main, if we've got to figure out how do we get along with the new military leaders in cairo, that's a domestic job. and secretary bill burns has been in cairo the last couple of days trying to talk some sense to the egyptian leadership. if we're trying to figure out what's happening in syria, a

lot of that -- some of it will be military aid to the rebels. but much of it will be humanitarian. and political. so again, the united states has to juggle our domestic and military arrows and olive branches to form a complete policy. >> given its increasing commitment to superficialality and conflict, do you think the news media this warts domestic efforts? >> no, i don't. i'm a great admirer of the fourth estate. they keep everybody in government honest. they have a constitutional role in our system. they translate government for the american people. they educate us about the world. just listen to news houffer on pbs at night or -- "newshour" on pbs at night. they are instrumental in giving us a true sense of the world. i don't think they complicate diplomacy. i would say they even facilitate it.

[applause] >> how large is the kevin durant foreign service, and what would it -- is the current foreign service and what would it cost to double the size of that service, and what would the benefits be of doing so? >> finally a question i want to answer. this is i numbers are going to be rough. think of an active duty military. 1.2 million.r think about two -- 2 million people in uniform and 600,000 american men -- diplomats. we need more than 600 -- 6500 staff 280 or to launch a 90 conflicts to work in washington and represent us -- to work in washington and

represent us around the world. in the great scheme of things in washington, it does not break the bank. condoleezza rice and hillary clinton said, hire 1000 more officers. it will not break the bank. mr. of them was able to actually succeed. i supported -- neither of them was able to truly succeed. i supported both of them. >> if we are the of history bents toward peace, in the middle east, thus -- bends toward peace, in the middle east, what is happening with the younger generation and their expectations about peace? >> that recalls a 19th century "

quote. martin luther king used this quote -- the ark of the moral universe is -- a bent toward justice. generations takes or centuries in terms of african-americans and the civil rights movement. that may be one framework for us in the middle east. it is going to be a long process. these countries have not known pluralism or the rule of law. most of them have not known democracy. overnight, to go from those incredibly hopeful moments to a fully functioning democracy like ours is not going to happen. it is going to be generations. if you pick up theodore parker and martin luther king, if you believe that perhaps at the end is justice and democracy and democratic freedom, that is what they need to work for.

we need to assert ourselves along the continuum true attention, through friendship, through some tough love. we need to give the egyptian government a lot of tough love. they have shot to been many people on the streets of cairo who are merely demonstrating and not acting violently. we have to pick and choose along the way how we intervene. at the end of it, we and today -- and they want to see a better future. think of a five act play. the egyptians, tunisia's, -- tunisians, jordanians might be at the end of a five act play. we have to have patience and stay with those people who

support democracy. we should have been little bit of humility. 1783 and 7089 -- between the end of the revolution when and 1789, we signed the articles of the confederation. disaster. you could see that in all of our history up to 2013. it is trying to perfect the more perfect union that jefferson talked about. we just gave fundamental political rights to african- in the on50 years ago civil rights and voting rights act of 1964 and 1965. we have a long way to go on religious tolerance in this

country, rights for gays. we are still building our union into it.e 270 years that kind of patients will allow us to stay with the people of the middle east over the long course ahead. >> you think about the work of most of the people in embassies. it is to get out of the embassy and meet with people and talk about economic activity and to help people form volunteer groups to influence the creation of society. in many of the countries where it is important that the effort to get built, you have a general safety issues about members of your service doing that level of work when that level of work is exactly what they need. what is your feeling about that and how do we get beyond that? >> i do not remember anything like this. we have been battling

terrorists globally for about 35 years. we didalways about what overseas to protect our people. we would close an embassy if there was a threat, but to close 19 embassies -- i support what the administration has done. that does bring us back to today's lecture. i am for diplomacy. i am also for our military. target theirto moral argument because they are species and they are evil and outflank them economically and to build similar -- democratic coalitions. another way is to find them, as president obama continues to do. we have got to employ all of our national strength to defeat this

threat. it is not just one threat. can you comment on diplomacy and curbing illegal immigration. >> that is a tough question. of the say that part diplomacy we have with canada, the largest undefended border in protect our to borders. i have never seen immigration as a problem. i hope congress will be able to agree on an immigration bill mexicanld legalize

americans in the united states. [applause] we should see them as people are already building america. they live with us. their kids are in our school. the kids are our hope for the future. our diplomacy and our diplomats have an obligation to defend our borders. we do not want to see illegal immigration. we should try to stop illegal immigration. illegal immigration deals with people already in the country. >> ladies and gentlemen, nick burns. [applause] >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] now to the u.s. and its surveillance program by the nsa.

overstepped its legal authority when it was doing unauthorized surveillance of americans and foreign targets. patrick leahy announced on friday that he wanted to hold another hearing on the nsa. we talked to another reporter about it. >> we are joined by jennifer martinez on the hill. why is patrick leahy calling for another hearing on the nsa? >> there was another report published by the washington post late thursday. broken had repeatedly promises rules and overstepped its authority. came out with a statement saying he remains concerned that congress is still not getting straightforward answers from the nsa and that they hope to hold

another hearing when congress returns to get answers. >> how bad was the report the washington post published on thursday? >> it is definitely pretty damning. it puts the administration in a worse position than it was with the surveillance program. it also calls into question the statement that the president made that the press conference and at the white house and other statements that administration officials had made. nsareport shows that the had procured private communications thousands of times without proper authorization. the washington post did an analysis and found that most of the incidences were unintended

and involved unauthorized surveillance of americans in the united states. >> they are going to told a hearing looking at these specific allegations. how far has contours gotten into the issue? are there any legislative solutions to the issue in the works? >> there have been a lot of hearings in the wake of these revelations over the nsa surveillance program that came to light after the edward snowden release of documents. the judiciary committee, including patrick leahy's committee, the house judiciary committee -- we have seen a bunch of legislation introduced. you have senators widen and udall introduce a set of three bills before congress broke for recess would -- that would

revise how the fisa courts operate. which introduced a bill that would narrow the phone data collection program, which of --es under which215 under section 215 of the patriot act. when the intelligence community is seeking phone records for an investigation, they have to prove they are only going after a terrorist group or a foreign target. the closest we have come to seeing congress actually vote on proposal thatdone the house voted on that would phone data the collection program. it failed, but it was a close vote.

congress was really concerned about the surveillance program and whether they were violating merica andns' privacy -- privacy.s' >> you can read jennifer martina's's reporting in the hill. on c-span, we will be talking about drones and how they affect civil liberty. then we returned to security threats with a compensation -- conversation on security. next, the future of pakistan. this is from the aspen ideas festival. the retired general stanley mcchrystal spoke. he is the retired former commander of forces in

afghanistan. we will hear from the ambassador -- the pakistani ambassador to the u.s. [applause] >> thank you all. somebody said to me once, david, the only time you tell the truth is in your novels. [laughter] i am afraid i am stuck with that. this is a fascinating opportunity for me as a journalist to talk to the people i would most like to quiz on where that country is going. i am really grateful for the opportunity to do that. i want to start with, in a sense, the fundamental question that makes all of us care deeply, anxiously about pakistan. i will summon up with a phrase that many americans use, that this is potentially the most dangerous country on earth in terms of the potential risks of nuclear weapons getting out, of absolutely catastrophic events. and so i want to ask you to start, and we will get to somewhat more detailed questions later, but i would ask you to start in saying first, do

you think that assessment of pakistan is correct? and second, how, over time, would you see u.s. policy reducing that danger? what would a relationship with pakistan 10 years from now look like where we would not say that? we would not say pakistan and existential threat in the same sentence. >> thank you, david, and thank you for letting me be here. i had grown up reading david's novels, and i took a great comfort in the fact that when we actually went into the real world, it could not be that hard. he understated it. i think the question on whether pakistan is maybe the most dangerous place for the world, the answer is yes in my view. at least right now. but it is not all pakistan's fault. it is not a series of bad decisions.

part of it is geography, and part of it is history. if you look at its location, particularly go back to the days of the great game, and then you look at posted 1947 as an independent nation, its relationship with india has been difficult, but then its neighbors are not particularly easy to be around, afghanistan, iran, and where it sits in the world. so that is difficult. ofn there are a number underlying problem -- problems that are there no matter what. there are economic problems, problems with water, electricity that can be fixed, but they still are difficult problems. they would be for any government in any country. there are newer problems, an internal set of insurgencies. there are more than one. there is the existence of al qaeda, the blue jays urgency, the pakistan and taliban on, then there is the turmoil that pakistan faces, sitting at this critical position with about 180 million people, the nexus between obviously india and much of the rest of the region. and of course you throw nuclear weapons on top of it. even if you took nuclear

weapons away, i think my answer would stop the -- would probably still be yesterday what we need to do is ensure we have all the factors. pakistan is like a complex system that i could never solve at west point, too many variables. if you try to grab one and say the problem is the army, the problem is al qaeda, you way over simple five. as we go through as americans, what we need to do is deal with pakistan in a very complex way. one of the things that used to disappoint me is we would go in 24 -- 2004, 2005, to deal with the president and we would go with talking points al qaeda, al qaeda, that is the be problem. and pakistanis we would deal with on the side, very close friends of mine, would say we have got a bunch of problems. al qaeda is about 10. help us with all of them. so we can help you with that one.

>> let me turn to the ambassador, who has thoughts as deeply about his country as deeply about his country is anybody i know, and ask you first when you hear americans say this is the most dangerous country on earth, what do you think as a pakistani? do you share that evaluation? mcchrystaleneral could comeback in on this, it is sometimes said that nuclear weapons are under much greater control, much better command and control than americans realize, and to that extent, we should ratchet back our inside he a little bit that this is a better controlled system -- our anxiety. >> yes, i do believe that pakistan is a dangerous place. my second part of that answer is not for the reasons that americans think. the americans do not get

pakistan. general mcchrystal and many other american diplomats going back to john foster salas go to pakistan and here one side and sometimes believe when pakistani officials say america must help a site that solve our problems. it is not america's problem to help pakistan solve their problem. why is pakistan a problem? it was a country that was created with little analysis. pakistan is only 66 years old. aerefore it has essentially lots of -- more than it has actual challenges. i, for example, i understand that pakistanis are concerned about india, but as a pakistani, i look at history,

and of course i know that the american relationship to history is an usual. it is the only country in the world work with the because history, he means that is -- when somebody says that his history, he means that is irrelevant. [laughter] it is important to understand yes, india has never publicly accepted the idea of pakistan, but it has not been responsible for initiating any of the wars with pakistan, let's be real about that. afghanistan is too weak and too poor to attack pakistan. most of the problems that back then sees itself and is psychological rather than real. the real problems are we have 180 million people, we have 210 million people based on this morning's estimates are the highest population growth rate in that region. half the population is below the age of 21. one third of them will never see the inside of any school.

forget about religious school, any school. one third of the young population. one third of the population is below the poverty line. another one third live just above it. and yet the country has nuclear weapons. and i am the only pakistani who has had the guts, in my opinion, to say look, the should haveons finally made us secure about india. india will never invade us. well, guess what? whore now like the guy keeps buying guns to protect himself and then say gosh, i cannot sleep because i'm afraid somebody will steal my guns. [laughter] now pakistan has created this new cycle that the americans are going to come take our nuclear weapons away.

the real trick to pakistan is for to come to terms with its geography, with its history, and with having a direction for it as a nation. -- before she was assassinated had a new vision for pakistan. her version was we will focus inward, put the kids into schools, we will keep the nukes, but we will eventually sign up some kind of international agreement that will make sure that we are not looked upon as a pariah. we will join globalization, and if aid is available to us, we will use it like korea or taiwan did. we are not going to live as an insecure nation because that insecurity then makes people think al qaeda, how can we use them against our enemy, india, instead of -- and that is why we have these problems in pakistan. so, yes, dangerous place, but americans sometimes don't get it. >> i was worried before, now i am really worried. [laughter] i mean, you, ambassador haqqani, just describe a country with a deep psychosis about itself that has nuclear weapons

mcchrystal and general, -- nuclear weapons, and the general mcchrystal, the question is how do we talk to a country that has this kind of psychosis, this anxiety about its relationship with india, america, so may people have tried, making him his best friend forever, bff, that ended up blowing up appeared other kind of tough talk, approaches have been tried. you have watch all of them in the last decade. what do you come out thinking is the right way for the united states to address what ambassador haqqani rightly says is the country with this psychosis? >> let me talk about national

service. [laughter] >> no. >> yeah. this is great. here is what i don't think we should do -- i think that we have engaged with pakistan and a spasmodic way. so what happens is 1971, we have a relationship earlier the cold war because pakistan for the geography and the fact that they were essentially on our side made them very the partners there. when henry kissinger wanted to go to china, they were very useful to help them get into china secretly, but then we pull back whenever we got something else to do, or we encounter a frustration. so it is spasmodic. when we go back any time, we go back with a fairly narrow, temporal set of objectives. we try to engage on that without understanding or trying to build the wider relationship you're it we have done a few really painful things. the press or a minute, after the pakistanis went publicly nuclear, stop the interaction between militaries essentially, so there is about a decade when pakistani military leaders did not come to the nine states for training.

how big a deal is that? i would go to pakistan when i dealt with pakistan military leaders, those who having basement with americans had one view and comfort level, then there was a whole group that had incredible suspicion and frustration. i don't believe that what we should do is immediately put our arms around them and say whatever you do is find. nor do i say we should recoil and say because you are dangerous, our way to not deal with you is to a nor you, it's kind of like covering our eyes and hoping pakistan goes away. because when you take your hands off whatever is there, it still is. so i think a longer-term, more consistent, very realistic policy that we cannot solve pakistan's problems, but we are a part, sometimes we can be a confidence builder to them, to help their confidence with their relationship with india and whatnot.

so i think we can play an significant role. >> i am are murmuring in the period -- i am remembering when you were ambassador, it seemed like pakistan was on the front page every day. part of that was you had a live wire, very high visibility pakistani ambassador in washington. i want you to talk about that, but my question really is this -- as we think about a stable, enduring, less dangerous, less neurotic u.s.-pakistani relationship, is turning the heat down a good idea? be more remote from the pakistan and u.s. media, what do you think about the right way to play that role of ambassador? >> first of all, i think i did not do anything wrong. pakistan's point of view and pakistan's concerns and american concerns about pakistan had to be put out there. what we need is an honest discussion.

for example, pakistanis have a legitimate question when they say why has americans policy toward pakistan been so asthmatic. pakistanis -- so spasmodic. on the nuclear question, let us be very possible -- honest. the reagan administration turned a blind eye to liberally, and then at the end when pakistan knew that that blind i'd meant we could go ahead with it, they immediately put all the sanctions. many of the administrations allow congress to regulate instead of being upfront and say why are you doing this, this is not right. because they needed the general, so they kind of finessed things with him.

and in the end, when it was over, the congressional relationship had to be implemented. but then pakistan wanted some honest answers. we cannot say we are not making a bomb, and then by the way we are just testing a bomb that we are not making. i think what we need is more candor in the relationship. it is not that what with those in islam a bad -- islamabad. more functional relationship rather than an understanding of what you are all about. lot, korea has received a less american aid event pakistan has peered pakistan is the second-largest recipient of american aid since 1947. $40 billion. what does that have to show for it?

the korean economy did a lot with that aid because they open their economy. every american general who meets a pakistani general has to say to them, the reason why our investors don't go to your country is not because the american government stop them. what is right is you have not completed the wiring for them to come. you open up, you come less than secure and your way of thinking, and you will reap the benefits. that candor has been missing because of the need-based relationship. we need them for sort of having basis. ironically, the pakistan never gave the basis. they just give you one cia base, and a big base the american military was hoping never got them. you let the big v actually get

spoiled in the process. >> a general mcchrystal, we do now have a moment where the page has been turned in pakistan. we have a new government, under the prime minister. ofhich has a whole new set personnel, new party, a new way of looking at the u.s. pakistan relationship, we think. does about india, and i'll be interested in your sense as a pakistani leader, i will ask ambassador haqqani the same thing, and then your thoughts about where the particular thoughts are in terms of leadership with the u.s. >> it is important, the first election pakistani history -- history from a civilian government. they've never been able to complete a term before. so being able to start a tradition of civilian leadership is critical peered pakistan, in my view, cannot continue with on-again, off-

again military taking over leadership of the country. i think it is an important inflection point, if the role of the military can be shaped into something more appropriate, pakistan for the military became viewed by many pakistanis with great respect. it became viewed as the essential organization. we think of george washington at the essential man. he pakistani military view themselves as the central work of pakistani sovereignty, pakistani pride, pakistani freedom, and there is much less regard for the effectiveness of civilian pakistani government than we would like in a good balance. part of that is because pakistani civilian government has not been impressed. now i think nawaz sharif has the opportunity to reshape that balance a bit. now, he is going to have to do it not just by controlling the military.

he is also going to have -- because i believe, and i may have a different view from the ambassador, when i deal with military leaders in pakistan, i don't see a bunch of duplicitous, dishonorable people. i see patriots to see the world through their lens and are trying to do what is right for their country. it might be different than what might be viewed by others, but i view it as pretty genuine. so he is going to have to shape that in a way that brings those two in better connection. the question is -- i do not know whether nawaz sharif can do it. i do not know him personally. i have read the history of him, and when i was springtime in pakistan, he was i'm a position to be around, but we are asking an awful lot of a guy who's got a questionable background.a ring>> so, ambassador haqqani, one great thing about ambassador haqqani it seen as everybody in andpakistani politics.

chances are he as worked with them at one point in the past. aso i want to ask you, you know a lot about nawaz sharif. what thoughts would you offer about how he can develop a civilian government, make it work, and in particular what advice would you have about how to deal with the problem general mcchrystal said? how does he speak to the chief of army staff or his successor and make clear this is not going to call the shots now. we have a civilian government. how do we do that? >> we must understand and american generals look at pakistani generals and see soldiers. pakistanis, especially those who have been imprisoned by generals at one point or another, look at them in uniform. is a very different perspective. on the one hand, you want to establish civilian supremacy, president -- was on that front.

he is to move two steps forward, 2.5 steps backward because he understood that the military does have far more influence, for example -- pakistan military runs the media and has influence over media that the american military does not. [laughter] >> wait for snowden next week. >> the american military is part of the process of defining american natural -- nationalist influence, but you are part of that process as well. in pakistan, the military wants to monopolize national interest. that is my problem. my brother served in the military, my father served in

pakistan military. so groups who think that they can actually determine national interest are going to be nawaz sharif the problem, and that problem is going to start very soon. it is not necessarily a priority, but he wants to do it could when he does that, he will run into some problems with the pakistani military. he has got to move carefully on that front. >> i think he should focus on -- >> why should he do that? why did he do that? >> because that is who nawaz sharif is. asi worked with him, i did not agree with him and left aside, he had a black mark against mining, and he tried to get even with me. he is a provincial politician who became national just because there was no alternative on the

popular front at that time. the pakistani military -- in the case of spending on the supreme court, the supreme court supports them. you do not decades before that should be decided, but the fact as he ran for office in 1990. that is like a presidential candidate in the united states running province with cia funding. you would never let that happen easily. [laughter] >> not easily? >> so this guy -- the military proxima, and then you want to secure priority from the military, which made him and his general -- rivals.

he should be focusing on solving pakistani internal problems. the educational system, scaling down the hate that pakistanis learn from their schools. hatred against jews, against hindus, india, there is no such thing that i have read that they are a blessing threat, but you know what, nations change their perception of threats, and there might have been a time when the mexicans and americans were fighting, guess what, now the americans are figuring out how to have more mexicans work in america. that is how the world moves. so pakistan -- this view that somehow india will always be our enemy is a wrong view. we need to open up on that. and those are the things we should focus on rather than settling scores. >> nawaz sharif is associated with the idea of opening to india's famous diplomatic opening and he visited to lahore. a lot of people thought that is the area where you will see a newlot of significant movement. the relationship between india and pakistan already is better than i think most americans realize.

what do you think about that? is there an opportunity to try to quickly do something? what you think, mr. mcchrystal? >> my thought is narrative change in pakistan. as long as the narrative is that these guys never wanted us to be a country, they will never let us be a country, and they are existential enemies, they will not be a move forward. nawaz sharif will be pulled back his of the previous president was. he opened up to indiana big way in the beginning. the way it worked is what rumors start floating, look, it is hard that the overwhelming majority of pakistan is -- an opinion polls to not accept the official version of what happened on 9/11. they believe the 9/11 was an inside job. there are people who don't believe the americans actually killed bin laden. you know, i'm not talking about 15%, 20%, i'm talking about larger numbers, 60%, that is to be changed.

a narrative change will have to proceed policy change in relation to india, otherwise we will have a lot of shaking of hands, decisions, and then they will all fall apart within a couple of years, a little incident on the border, some guy gets shot, a bombing in this -- incident in india, and it all falls apart. this is to be based on more solid footing. >> i would probably flip it. i agree with the master, but i think you need to do the steps first the have i think the attitude and the narratives are going to follow that could i think forcing -- there have been some talk recently about lowering tariffs on textiles for india and pakistan on the condition that they increase their trade between the two countries. i think if you force interaction, i don't think you first convince somebody to like somebody else and then they're going to hang around them. i think you force them to deal with them and then i think you

change attitudes over time. >> i want to change gears just a little bit. i want to ask general mcchrystal to step back to the time that he was the commander in kabul in a 2009. as we know, general mcchrystal put together a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the taliban insurgency and a stabilizing afghanistan. part of the -- what drove the policy was that if we do get afghanistan right, we will stabilize pakistan as well. i would like to ask you, general mcchrystal, to look back at that honestly and critically. we have now had four years of experience with that strategy. i think we would all be interested in your evaluation, white went the way you thought it would, what, as you look

back, would you do differently, and obviously where do you think we are now as we head towards 2014 and the departure of american combat troops from that country? afghanistan flying on its own. >> first on the counterinsurgency strategy, i had been in afghanistan for part of every year from 2001 on. i had been commanding special operating forces going after al qaeda before i took over in 2009, but i so most of my time in iraq. i had come to the conclusion from my experiment and the us in afghanistan that the only way to be successful was not to be just enemy focus and killing people because the russians killed 1.2 million afghans, and i did not work. so i became convinced that we had to get something that won the coveted support of the afghan people. i had studied it for years, but it was proven in front of my

eyes in iraq. i came in in the summer of 2009, and the psychological situation in afghanistan was devastating. philosophically, we had been there for eight years, and huge expectations which many afghans had that we would help sort things out had not been met. some of them were unrealistic, but the reality was what the west had been able to do was not very effective, and what the afghans had done for themselves was not very effective. so by 2009, they had grown cynical. they were losing hope, and the taliban were leveraging that to say look, this thing is not going to work, and we are about to be back. the taliban were not popular, they still are not, but the very weak sense of government and weak other institutions, police and military, gave the sense of gloom and doom. so when i took over in 2009, i knew we had to do several things. first, we had to change our strategy so that we could implement counterinsurgency. we can start getting the support of the people, actually protecting them because you

cannot separate them, everything because if you cannot support and protect them, everything else is not important. the great question for me was did we have enough time. america was already tired, our nato allies were tired of it, pakistan has grown convinced that we were likely to fail in the region, so we were trying to do this against this big wall of skepticism. so as i dealt with afghans, it was really a case, can we get people to believe? can the mets win the 1969 pennant? we had to say listen, we can do this. it is in your interest that we succeed. because a taliban-run afghanistan is a worse possible outcome to pakistan's stability. i don't think any of that was wrong. i still believe that that assessment was absolutely accurate. now what did we do? we went and we pushed, i spent a

lot of time in pakistan with general kayani and other leaders to try to get them to believe. i think i had the moving to where they believe that we had a chance to be successful, but in a one-on-one moment, general kayani looked at me, we laid out our strategies, i said this is what i try to do, he said stan, i think it is right, but i do not think you have enough time. i do not think you will succeed because i do not think you have enough time. what other options i have? except i had been given the mission. where did i think that it fell short? one, i think a heck of a lot of it succeeded. i think afghanistan is a lot of better than people think. their problem is political not. they can solve their other problems. their big problem is credibility of politics, and they have to do

that themselves pure we cannot do that. but we did make some mistakes. i made some mistakes. as we push forward, one thing is the american people and others like quick successes. so if you come in and you say you have got to believe, i get a call the next day that says did you do it yet? [laughter] and i will say no, you have to believe i can do, we will do it, not that it is done, so that makes asian -- so that the expectation that if we do not do it immediately, it does not work. that is a problem. i personally did not navigate d.c. very well. as we went and asked for more forces -- when i first got there, i did not want additional forces. i do not think we need it. we do this big assessment, my staff -- we played in all kind of computer games and everything, and we laid it down, the only way to you can do this is you have to have enough additional law enforces, read u.s., to be a bridge forced to build the afghan military up. there is no other way. so i knew going to d.c. for additional forces was not going to make me mr. popular, but i did that.

as we do that, that was very difficult political science, all of 2009, new administration, all kinds of reasons. was not a popular war. we push that through, but as we pushed that through and were successful in making that argument, i think that there were already people who were skeptical about -- here we go again. we will have another iraq, another vietnam, whatever they wanted. so i do not think that we were as commencing to all the other constituents and supporters as we needed to be. so i think that it has got a great chance right now. unfortunately, i'm still an absolute believer. but i am probably biased. >> i want to turn to hasain, but i want to push back. there was a way in which you are building on quicksandin because of the corruption and

incompetence of the karzai government him and building on quicksand is not a viable strategy. how would you respond to that? >> my favorite movie is "monty python and the holy grail." [laughter] do you remember the thing when they go up in the tower and say we built this castle and it fell in the swamp, and the second castle sunk, and a sixth castle fell, and we built the seventh castle and it stayed. we did not have a lot of time, to i thought we had to do was first convince the afghan people it was going to get better, provide enough security to convince people it is different this time. i absolutely knew we were standing on quicksand because if people believe money is going aut the back door, it is

actually put in the front door. at the same time, it takes a long time to fix those problems. it is cultural as well as physical. so we were, dave rodriguez and i, one of the officers i admire most, we used to get in my office and we would look at each other and say can we do this, and he would say we are going to have to pass on every down, and then we have got a 50-50 chance. then we looked at each other and asid but this is our mission. andm and him and him himand i think we can. so that was the mindset that i had. >> powerful answer. >> i have to rise to the defense of president karzai. part of the problem is also the expectation of american liberals, in particular, that a modesty should be like scandinavian modesty. instead of accepting the fact that it is probably going to be more like chicago and mayor daley. [laughter] [applause]

and so just cut them a little and him and him him and himhere is a tribal society that has come out of -- it is still at war. can you imagine any state in the united states that have been a war for 30 years? it has been at war. they were refugees. so coming back and rebuilding and rebuilding political organizations and getting people together -- you know, you have got to do it in many ways. i am not supporting corruption, i have never supported corruption, but i think sometimes these standards by which afghanistan is measured are a little too high. i think in that sense, afghanistan, if i were running afghanistan, i would not take money for myself, but i would probably also turn a blind eye to some of the building -- dealings that are happening because i need the support of this tribe or that ethnic group or that political faction.

>> two quick stories, we went on a trip one time down to kandahar, and the place that we met, president karzai says it was not a good shave. the previous governor there and pretty well known to have a fair amount of corruption, he said he would have never let it be like in a. one of his ministers said yes, but you would have stolen it from the government. in the president said, well, we would just have wasted it. i took senator levin down shortly after the election, and everyone was upset because they thought president karzai was going to win anyway. the posturing candidate was going to win, and it was going and him and him and

himwe went to a village, and senator levin and i sat in this room with about 50 big-bearded guys adding on the floor, and at him and himone point when he is pretty common, senator levin says you know, i got reports that everyone in this village voted for president karzai, how is that democracy? one guy stood up and he said i don't get it. we all got together, we talked about it, we decided that president karzai was the best person for us, why would we split our vote? we are not stupid. so, ok. >> before turning to the audience for your questions, ask you the baseline issue that we are all going to be struggling with, which is as american combat forces leave next year, what is afghanistan going to look like, and by extension, what is pakistan going to look like? you hear a lot of people that say for all that we have done,

for all of the landing efforts, intense struggle, loss of life that forces put in, that afghanistan is going to go back into a civil war. you hear a lot of people, ambassador haqqani, who say whatever nawaz sharif is saying, the pakistanis are going to go back to gaming afghanistan and using it as a rear buffer in dealing with india. we are going to have the same crazy stuff we had before, so i want to ask each of you, separately, let's think out five to 10 years, give me your honest it sure of what that is going to look like. >> i reserve the right to be wrong. [laughter] i think -- sometimes we use the word muddle along, i do not think it will break into a civil war. i think there are enough things linking that country together

now that they will hold together. it is critical that president karzai give up to another person. i think there will probably be just because of the predominant country. but i think that's what happens if of the institutions that have been built, some very flawed, i think there is enough strength. the other thing, and this i cannot pour with mentors, but the women i dealt with in afghanistan, have a tough road, but they are incredibly strong. i don't think they have anyin aninterest in going back. the ones that i met are not young. the young people, the millennials -- [applause] yeah, they deserve a hand. the millennials are disdainful or are you are generation. they think people of our generation have made huge

mistakes and they want this generation to move on. they're probably right. at a certain point you probably have to move this generation out so that young people who have gotten a different view on though make a lot of mistakes. but i think what happens, i think afghanistan holds together, i think it probably still suffers from periodic insurgencies. i don't think if we're smart that al qaeda goes back there in significant numbers, but if they are and if afghanistan holds together i think it latest be easier to address. so their challenge of course is politics in the very long term economics. >> i think, i share the view of general mcchrystal about afghanistan. i i think that in any case the taliban are now restricted to the southeast and the eastern provinces of bordering pakistan. so basically there i think we should stop worrying so much about the fire and pay more

attention to dealing with arsonists, and i think i've already said what i wanted to say in that one sentence. the taliban, to think that the taliban had a popular after began phenomenon is a wrong idea. somebody support the tail ban in afghanistan because they want to have some influence in afghani politics because they think -- pakistan is going to be for complex. i think that there are many fault lines in pakistan, an ethnic fault line. there's one purely by penjabi he hasn't had the support like any other of paxton has supported him. the military civilian fault line will still remain. and the bigger fault line that nobody wants to pay attention to is the islamist, the modernist fault line. so that is something that needs to be worked out. i think that pakistan will have problems. it will have difficulty. if it remains on the democratic course, most probably there may be a democratic alternative that

will emerge up in the next election that may say enough of boating about the bush, these are our real problems, this is what we are going to do. we are not going to try and conquer afghanistan, we're going to make friends with who ever is the government in afghanistan. we will stop worrying about kashmir right now, yes we will have a right to it but we will not try to get it right now. wee will start dealing with indy a. we will grow our economy, put kids though are not in school into school, and move forward. that may happen five years later, but the next five years we will have a mixture of bad news and worse news. >> so i... >> that is honest and helpful. let me close this out by

offering a brief comment from the moderator. ambassador was careful to speak of the arsonists without being specific as to who that might possibly be. but if you assume that what we're hawk talking about here is whether the pam stand i intelligence service will continue to metal in afghanistan so as to protect its security interests, it's interesting that the i.s.i. from what i report has been working pretty intensively and effectively with the taliban negotiators who have come to qatar to begin yesterday negotiations with the u.s. representative. it's a broad group, it is representative of the breadth of the taliban, it has members of the haqqani network, who are the scariest people of all who seem to be included. so that is the work of the i.s.i. and if you looked at that take you'd say that they are at least now trying to give this peace

process a chance, and on the question that i put to the two panelists, the idea that afghanistan is just going to fall back in time, with so many americans have, this idea that this premodern country will just fall back into the dark ages, don't believe that. in the years that we've been in afghanistan, it has become a largely urban society, the size of kabul, kandahar, all these cities have doubled and tripled. the electrical connections between people and media, the education -- when i look at the numbers, the one thing i know is it's not going to be the same as it was. i don't know what it latest be. so let's turn to the audience for your questions. we have microphones.

rather than recognize people, i'd ask you, bob and everybody else, if you'd just go back to those microphones and we'll call on people in turn. there's one here and one here. and yes, ma'am. >> hi. shelly porgas, washington d.c., i'm the cochair for the ready for hillary pack. i would like to, you've presented on one hand some optimistic viewpoints, on the other hand some perhaps not so optimistic ones. but if you had a chance to ask the president, current or future, for one thing in terms of moving, you know, making progress in the recent on, what would that be? >> do you want to direct that at one -- >> i'd love to hear from either one because they represent such diverse point of views. >> i think a strategy, i think what we have not done well enough is to be able to articulate how we would like this to come out. i think we have to be very

realistic. you can't make a river go 90 degrees different from where it's flowing. we have to be very humble about the changes and the impact we have in a region. but i'm not sure we sit down ever, and for the american people as well as for people we're dealing with, paint a picture of how we'd like it to come out, then the pieces start to -- i think sometimes we execute that without the picture. >> my quick one liner is, don't give the impression that you're too desperate to get out. even if you are. because then you do that, then you're encouraging the enemy. the taliban have always said we have the time and the americans have the watches, so then you start, and that's an american, it's a political problem here. the administration didn't have to announce a date for its final withdrawal, because then you're just telling them to, how long they have to wait and that the not to actually get the peace process to bring the result, but to get the peace process going so that you don't pay attention to anything else. it could be like the vietcong

who engaged in a peace process for a long time while they are planning with the north vietnamese how to take over saigon. optimism is a great thing, but since i moved here i realized that there is op timism and then there is optimism based on realism. and i think the latter is a lot better. >> sir? >> hi, i'm amir sheik, i'm an american of pakistani and indian descent. i do a lot of traveling and when i travel sometimes it's more convenient for me to be pakistani than american, because there's a big trust deficit in the muslim world against americans. now, my question is related to this. what's the growing role of china in pakistan? i feel like pakistan is looking for alternatives than engaging with the u.s. and china, one of its neighbors, is starting to increase its engagement.

if we're talking about economic development and pathways to resolving conflicts, what role is china playing and what is the u.s. perception on that issue? >> great question. >> my short answer i to that is that china and pakistan have been close since 1950, actually, but the fact remains that the real thing that pakistan needs is large capital input. chinese businessmen make decisions just like american businessmen do. so i don't see large amounts of chinese money coming just, i mean it's a great fantasy that the chinese will somehow come and bail us out. nobody will bail pakistan out except pakistanis making the right economic decisions. china does remain engaged with pakistan for closely, but frankly the chinese have been advising pakistan for almost 15 years now to put down the jihaddists and move on and to make peace with india. so i think there is the chinese policy, and then there is this little romance that pakistan is have been china being the great redeemer that will come and help them. and i don't think that the latter is all that realistic. >> bob. >> general and ambassador, would you address more fully pakistan

al qaeda and pakistan taliban? >> pakistan taliban is quite obvious. most people understand it, i think, because pakistan is always wanted influence in afghanistan. first they had the mujahideen groups, and when those failed they ended up supporting the taliban. officially pakistan says we have contacts with them, but we do not control them, which may be true, but if that's the case then pakistan should not support them at all. because if you have contacts with people who don't listen to you, then why take the responsibility for their actions, when you have no control over them. but most taliban leaders are based in pakistan, everybody knows that. and that's how they have been brought to doha for the peace

process. so that is easy to understand. pakistan al qaeda, more complicated, there are too many fundamentalists and jihad i groups in pakistan that the state tolerates in different degrees, and could they be the ones who have been supporting al qaeda and not the government of pakistan? possibly. but pakistan needs to deal with al qaeda, otherwise the fact that almost all major al qaeda leaders that have ever been found have always been found in pakistan, is something that really does cast a shadow on my country, and i think that shadow needs to be removed. >> i add, i don't think pakistan, i don't think al qaeda has ever been pakistani in nature, the leadership has never been pakistani background. they've been there for a long time sox there are relationships and marriages that make it stickier than just somebody outside, but they are still a

foreign entity that can be done away with. there are multiple talibans, there's an afghan taliban, a pakistani taliban. the pakistani taliban is focused really against the government of pakistan. the afghan taliban are focused and they are largely afghan in ethnicity, they're focused against the government of afghanistan. the i.s.i. when we talk about the relationship with the taliban, that's largely with the afghan taliban. now we captured a lot of people, i was in a lot of detainee interrogation asks what not, and the least popular people to the afghan taliban are i.s.i., so when you think about it there is an unholy relationship, there is help, there is, david is exactly right. but it's not one of these things where they are best buddies and they watch sports together and drink beer. it is very much one of using each other and coercion. and threats and what not. so it's very important to understand that. so, again, it's so complex that it doesn't allow a very short answer.

>> a question where i'm going to ask you, knowing i would be get it, for a one word answer. do you believe that osama bin laden hid for five years in pakistan without anyone in the pakistani military intelligence knowing about it? >> no, i don't believe it. >> okay, then i'm going to ask you for a 10-word answer. ( laughter ). >> i don't think, now this is my opinion, i'm not backing this up with hard facts. i don't think general kiani knew that, i don't think there was a plan on where he was. but this was 700 meters from the gates of west point. now who know what is 700 meeters from the gates of our west point. but the reality is it was a very distinct come pound, it was like that funny house at the end of the street where people didn't act the same as everybody necessary the neighborhood, in an area why people are not naturally trusting. so somebody facilitated something. now, i sort of buy into the idea that the ambassador and i were talking, it probably was not official, but it could be someone who's got relationship

with an official who is providing the help and there is a failure to ask questions that needed to be asked. there's a failure to due diligence. >> short answer, if you read president mushareff's book, he talks about a... he said at that time there were three houses that were al qaeda houses that we discovered. well, if this was one those houses, why didn't they keep monitoring it subsequently is a big question. that said, it is not conducive to my health and well-being, and well-being to answer this question -- >> you're an american professor now. >> but i'm still a pakistani citizen, you know. and that's the only citizenship i have. so i think i've said enough. >> general mcchrystal, thank you for your service, and ambassador, thank you for your great sense humor and insight

into pakistan. my question is, you brought it up at the start, 100 nuclear weapons in pakistan. i'm still scared that it's 100 nukes in an unstable society. can you give me, scare me more or give me any confidence or insight at all? >> i think you're right. i think an unstable society should not have that many nuclear weapons. and pack stab's nuclear deterrence needs a better concept and better practice. and last but not least, the real bad scenario for pakistan would be an islamist take over of pakistan, that would be the worse. right now in the hand of the pakistani military and general mcchrystal knows many of the pakistan generals, they have a, there's no loose nukes in pakistan, that you need to understand. pakistan does have a command and control system and it's a pretty stable one. but is the country stable enough? perhaps not. but then people would argue that if that's the only criterion for

countries to possessing nuclear weapons, then what are the alternatives, you can't take them away. you couldn't take them away from the soviet union, china, so how will you take them away from pakistan. so in the end the best course is for pakistan developing the trust of the rest of the world, where by pakistan can have a minimum nuclear deterrent, which ensures its security, but takes away the fears that you and i and everybody else has about an unstable country having nuclear weapons. >> general mcchrystal do you want to speak to that? >> no. >> we have time for one last question. >> my question is much broader and directed to the general. it seems to me that presidents come, presidents go, we still have the same policy, call it robust, call it the continuation

of the british empire where the sun never sets, where in the bowels of this government to washington and elsewhere, where is this continuous streak of military warfare, et cetera, et cetera, coming from? where exactly are the power lovers that can continue our robust approach? >> i think i know where you stand based on the way you worded the question. it's on the first floor of the e ring of the pentagon -- no. ( laughter ) it lies in the fact that america has defined certain interests, and certain interests in the world be it the flow of oil, be it the protection or the security of certain allies and what not, we have a unique role in the world and we have identified certain interests. we then make decisions to either use or not use military force in that case. now sometimes we get it wrong. sometimes we think that i'm not sure we get the interest wrong, it's kind of hard to argue with some of the big broad interests, but the way we go after them,

you can pick up the post are child for this, the invasion of iraq, you can ask yourself whether that furthered american interests or doesn't, and people come down both side. but i don't think that it was a kabul of evil people trying to do world to jemini. i think it was a bunch of good people who did an assessment that came out with a different conclusion that you or i or anyone else. i never buy into the conspiracy theory in d.c. because i never got in a room where the conspirators were there. >> let's poll people in washington d.c., each one advancing their own career, so them conspireing together to change the world is very difficult to accept. but here's what i think. you see, the problem does not lie in america having all this power and being able to use it.

in some cases for a lot of good. and i'm giving you a nonamerican's perspective. the problem lies in the fact that americans as a nation just do not know how to do things on a small scale. so, for example, when you go to afghanistan, you're not, you're trying to change everything, and from how they run their schools. so president eisenhower used to talk about the military complex, now you also have an engineering complex. when i was ambassador one of my favorite complaints used to be that the aid to pakistan includes studies on how to run schools in pakistan, which are conducted by americans. why should they do that, why can't you let me be the judge of how to run a school in my own country? if that was the case then you would need a lesser footprint

abroad, you would have more friends abroad and you would be using your military power a lot more, shall we say, methodically, but with less of the fallout that you complain about and everybody feels strongly about. >> so one problem in having a discussion with former officials is that i always end up, on end up wishing nay were current officials. [applause] so i want to thank them for this. >> taking a look at what is happening in egypt. a mosque was cleared near cairo. this video is courtesy of out to zero. the associated press reports the egyptian security forces stormed the mosque after firing tear gas there. hundreds of supporters of the

ousted resident mohamed morsi were protesting that we and -- protesting there. security forces rounded up the protesters and cleared the mosque out. across egypt, and hundred 73 people have been killed -- 173 people have been killed. supporters say they are marching for the return of the deposed president and the and of military rule. we will take a look at some of the video here. egyptian authorities say they are considering outlawing the muslim brotherhood. this is according to a spokesperson egyptian cabinet. the group had been banned for decades but the muslim brotherhood came into power when mohamed morsi was elected president a year ago. he was overthrown in a military coup. this happened in early july.

protesters say they will continue protesting until he is reinstated. tonight we are going to be turning to u.s. colleges and threats around the world. we will hear from officials from the national counterterrorism center. that will be at 8:35 p.m. eastern tonight. >> unfortunately in this environment right now, the moment something passes the house, the pressure on immigration, which has dissipated over the last couple of weeks and months, will immediately be back in the forefront. i think it will be difficult to get away from something that looks like the senate bill. >> from your perspective it would be better for republican leaders not to act on immigration? >> the america people have a lot of concerns. there is unemployment out-of- control. is some pretty serious issues that need to be taking care of right now. immigration being one of them. the gloryere near --

released yesterday was 1.5 -- the poll we released yesterday was 1.5%. they're some pretty important issues to deal with. we shouldn't be distracting ourselves with an immigration bill in the senate, which is pretty big that. >> ceo of american -- of heritage action for america, talks about his plan to promote the conservative agenda, sunday at 10 a.m. eastern on newsmakers. lex next, some of the technology behind unmanned aircraft and how it is used in the united states and abroad. journalfrom "washington ." host: michael toscana joining us. people call them unmanned aerial vehicles read i suppose that is

what you prefer. talk a little bit about language versus why it is one way over another. guest: they are called unmanned aircraft systems. that is the term that congress and the faa uses as the official terminology pure -- as the they are terminology. also called remotely piloted aircraft system. so the key word in both of those acronyms is the word system. that is one of the misnomers that most people have when you talked about unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system. most people think of something very large in military, something hostile. that is not what these systems are. they fly only up to 400 feet. they lack between two hours and usually use that sign of -- they theally work during the day.

missions they are going to be performed are not those involved with manned aircraft. they're used in operations there where it is very safe. basically what you have is a thing that flies. 30 percent of the overall system. you have a communication link. and you have a ground station. most importantly, a human being. there is a human being involved. host: when you hear someone refer to them as ground, what goes through your mind? guest: i understand the difference, but most people do not. that is why i did not use that term. host: a lot of people this morning talk about technology and privacy issues and concerns. what are the other issues besides surveillance?

guest: excellent point. most of the applications when we get into the national airspace is precision agriculture. more than 80 percent will be in agriculture. it will help farmers, ranchers, people of that type to be able to do what they do best in a more efficient and effective manner. when you understand that lettuce or corn that does not mind if you are watching it, the privacy issue goes away. there are not a whole lot of human beings that will be involved in it as well. it is not have the privacy concerns. -- does not have the privacy concerns. host: if you want to ask our guest questions, the numbers are on the screen for republicans.

for democrats -- and for independence -- you can also send us tweets about this. there are three types of operators of the system. one is known as the private recreation operator. there is also the public operator who operate four things for the federal state and local agencies. could you break down what groups or industries represent these three groups? guest: the terminology goes back to operations. we have had military being the dominant use. we're transitioning to civil and commercial applications. you mentioned recreational use. the american modelers association has been around for more than 80 years. people have been flying remotely-controlled systems for many, many years.

that is the recreational side. there are no restrictions, and they have been doing that safely for many years for the purpose of a recreational standpoint. when you get to the civil and commercial applications, again, right now it is prohibitive to use them in a commercial way. that determination is done by the faa right now. and those are restrictions from the standpoint of safety. host: what decisions does the faa have to make? guest: within the unmanned aircraft system, safety is paramount. there is really only one responsibility, to make sure that anything that goes into the natural -- national airspace does so in a safe manner. it has to detect in the void if

it is an unmanned system. if it goes in to the national airspace, it can do no harm. it cannot fallout of the national airspace and do harm to anyone else. i will tell you, they are doing a very good job. we have the safest guys in the world. host: what is the deadline that the faa has to make sure when this is supposed to happen? guest: congress mandated in the faa reform act in february of 2012 that by september 30, 2015, the faa had to integrate unmanned aircraft systems and to the national airspace. it did not say fully integrate, but just recently there has been success with the faa, and also of in the arctic with systems that were flown for oil and gas

exploration, as well as wildlife monitoring. the test went fantastic. it was done in a safe and efficient manner. host: so it is possible for these systems to interact with planes and other aircraft that are used and flown by people? guest: again, look at where the operational spaces. because the faa knows anything going into the national airspace, they can control that. the predominance of the use that you will see as we start integrating the systems will not be where normal commercial airlines are flying. when you look at the band the bears place they're flying in, anything from 1,000 feet or below is where they will be able to operate the unmanned aircraft systems we're talking about. for the most part, many of them theyh less than 55 pounds.

are not going to be the 747 types. host: with the safety regulations, will they be brought in nature or specific in nature? is there concern about how specific they become? guest: i believe the faa is working towards the right mix to ensure safety and the national airspace. the integration of manned and unmanned systems will be done in a very safe matter. there's a lot of attention on this, and that is the job of the faa. host: michael toscano, president and ceo of unmanned vehicle systems international will be with us to talk about these issues and take your questions. the first one is built from ohio, for our guest on of the independent line. go ahead, please. caller: i was wondering on the air space thing, 400 feet is supposed to belong to the citizens. anything below 400 feet is

considered trespassing. that was my question. i was wondering how they are going to do that, and if they get caught trespassing, what someone gets in trouble if they shot it out of the sky over their property? guest: 400 feet and below is the restriction for fixed wing. helicopters can fly below that. as far as where the domain lies for air that you own, that is a discussion being made. you have to take responsibility. that would appear restless -- reckless act. i would caution you. host: jim asking will crash, caused damage? guest: first of all, and the operational environment is well

known in many cases certified by the operator. if you are going to do a search and rescue, and 8 of hundred thousand people go missing every day, this is a capability that allows you to find them in a much more affected and affectionate -- much more effective and efficient manner. what i am saying is the boundary of the search envelope is identified. the precautionary experts -- the precautionary tales are anything that goes wrong, these systems are programmed to go to a designated spot to either land or go to a certain spot where they can establish the link in communications and operate in a safe manner. safety is paramount with

unmanned systems and you will not launch them and put them into the national airspace of us they are safe. take a weapon showing the folks the convention center. a lot of exhibitors. how many drug manufacturers are there in the united states? guest: today we have over 590 exhibitors but they come from all over the world. i did not have the specific number on hand. and i believe it is well over 300. host: so international people build these as well? guest: this is a global technology. we mentioned agriculture being one of the biggest things you will see as utilization. also, when you look at wild fires, monitoring weather. hazardous conditions. recently obviously with fukushima and katrina. when you need to have

situational awareness or the ability to provide a capability to an individual that may be stranded or in need of help, this is a great way to do it in a very cost-effective and safe manner. host: who is the largest builder in the u.s.? guest: 1 from a dollar standpoint and one from volume. the ability to have situational awareness. many of the small ones that we less than 5 pounds, they operate for 20-30 minutes. if you have a situation where you had a critical incident that took place. when the first responders got on the site in oklahoma with the debris and smoke, the individuals could not go in and do their job because they did not know if there was a bomb, and did not know if there was a gas leak. if they have the capability of flying it up to the building, it

would have made the job of a lot easier. anytime you see where the men and women that are trained and responsible perform these missions, this is a tool that allows the to do their job better. host: cameras typically attach to these systems? what else could be attached? guest: in the farming industry, there will probably sensors that understand photosynthesis or the chemical makeup of the soil and things of this nature, which those devices exist in developing even more of them. so if you are trying to get pictures, you will have a camera on then -- on it. if you are trying to find out when to pick something, you may have fermenting the vice.

so now farmers can know exactly when they should harvest the crop. maybe they do have at one point in time and wait a week or two. which means they get a higher which means they get a higher yield, do not waste as much of the fruit. to get a better product. host: cameras are privacy concerns. how you answer people who are concerned about this? -- how do you it so people who are concerned about this? guest: with any technology, you have to use it in a responsible way. that is no different than the internet. we are at a point where we are writing bullying laws because some people aren't as using the technology to do things it is

not supposed to be done. we have had privacy laws. peeping tom laws and privacy laws. it says if you break the law, you are held accountable with -- whether you do it with a man that system, unman the system or binoculars across the street. if you break the law, you are held accountable. host: specific laws are needed for this industry? guest: the fourth amendment has been around for 422 years. a lot of technologies developed during that timeframe. he looked up phones, cell phones, satellite technology. usually when we talk about the privacy issue, it is about the collection of data. it is the collection of the data and how it is being analyzed and stored and how it is being disseminated and how it is being destroyed. that is true with much of the

data we're talking about. so it is not how you collect it, it is what happens after. host: 8 from texas. independent line. -- dave. caller: you mentioned 1,000 feet and a low for the ranch land. any type of height restriction over residential or will they be able to fly to feet above the roof of your house? you say about the privacy issues, that is the government that has gone to process privacy issues. if they are the ones pricking privacy, how will we hold them responsible? guest: again, and the operation any operation and all of the private citizens are getting involved with. you may say we will of the use these systems for these particular applications or if you are going to use them, this is how you have to do it.

you have to do it in a safe matter and all local walls of the rules. that is what they're there for. host: our guest is michael toscano. our next guest is jordan in maryland. caller: what do you think the unmanned vehicles are used as far as the fire department, police department and other local government? guest: again, a lot of the civil applications are ideal. the men and women are trained to do their job better than anyone else. obviously search and rescue is very important. fire fighting very important. a lot of them in the park ranger were that the do monitoring of the environment or the condition. when you look at noa monitoring weather and the tornadoes throughout the world, hurricanes, floods -- all of these things that affect us as human beings, this is a better way for us to understand the operational environment to the environment for which we live and other species here as well.

monetary the wildlife to be able to understand so we do not disturb their habitat or make sure we can live in harmony. this gives us more situational awareness. host: you talked about training that goes for the operators of these systems. is there a standard training done as far as time and technical capability and things of that nature? guest: we're still in the process of determining what the standards will be. because this is a family of systems -- obviously the training of something that is 2 pounds and live 40 feet high and line of sight will be different from something you fly that will go beyond the line of sight in much different altitudes.

there is no one answer i can give you. depends on what operational environment is. host: jordan in maryland. i think we lost him. talk a little bit about your role, especially here on capitol hill. i suspect you and others in the industry talk to folks on capitol hill. what has been the basis of the issue? what do you talk about most? guest: the association for unmanned vehicle systems international is the advancement of unmanned system. so we're talking mostly about unmanned aircraft systems. we had many conversations with

lawmakers, stakeholders. this is to make sure people understand how technology can benefit their life. there is a lot of information as we talked about the beginning of the segment that even the word drone has a negative connotation to it. that is not with these systems are. anytime you have had a system where you needed the information to have this, if you have ever had a lost child, you want them to have the best tools possible to be able to get a good result in a timely manner. that is what this technology brings. there is a human being that is in the loop or on the loop that is making the decision. this is just an extension of the eyes and ears of the human being in order to do their job in a much more efficient way. host: it comes to congress, are there specific laws you are talking about?

guest: the privacy issue is something we talked to them on a regular basis because no one wants their privacy to be invaded or taken away. this is just like any other technology we have to deal with. we meet with the congressional and decision makers. many will tell you they understand the economic impact this technology can have in their states and from a national standpoint and global standpoint. within the first three years when we get into the national airspace, you will have 70,000 new jobs created. $13.6 billion of economic impact. the first 10 years the numbers will go up dramatically. over 90 billion in impact. this can help grow the economy, create new and exciting and good paying jobs.

it allows people to be more effective and efficient and what they do today. host: 39 states so far have walls and bills that specifically deal with search warrants. what does it say that some mistakes have some type of law dealing with this issue? guest: again, this is on the minds of some of the people because they recognize this technology is something different. that is because it is new and revolutionary, and some call it disruptive. once you explain to them how this will be used and how the technology can better their lives and make it beneficial to all of mankind, 20 of those states have defeated the legislation. yes, there are some that are put in place. should make no difference.

the operation is technology agnostic when it comes to the laws we have when it pertains to privacy. that is one of the biggest things people miss. it is not about the aircraft that flies. this is about data collection. we should address the issue of data collection and let the technology be available for everyone to take advantage. host: this pretty much has to come down the pike in your mind? guest: correct. host: josh on the republican line. caller: i was in the marine corps infantry for five years, and what of my jobs was to get trained on a small two-person drowned. i think the largest part, we used it for reconnaissance. one of the problems or

confusions in the popular discussion today is the lack of knowledge as to what is the difference between a war fighting drowned like a predator drowned or something like a global hoc or something like this and what is of reconnaissance drone and what would be used on domestic soil? we envision predator drums with missiles flying over the communities, which would not be the case at all, which would be incredibly expensive. here is where i disagree with you. he said he would not need specific loss but you were referring to statute laws that would be specifically about

drones and privacy and things like that. the vast majority of the fourth amendment protections as technology has increased from wiretaps to registries to infrared detection devices has been jurisprudence. i cannot imagine we would not see massive litigation based on privacy issues in relation to unmanned drones. host: let's let the guest respond. guest: i am not a lawyer, and it did not stay at the holiday inn. the answer i will give you is yes, we will see the legislative body interact with the technology is used in a more expansive way.

it is 50 years after the internet has been introduced that we are now writing bullying lolls about the internet. the technology has to be utilized and we have to go through the normal process of finding out exactly how this technology will be integrated in safe and acceptable way. here we are five or six or seven generations later. in the technology has evolved into what we want it to be in order to be able to do the things we feel are important to us and do it in a safe manner. host: one tweet saying they can be used but our way to undermine our liberty and freedom. guest: i disagree. if you use the technology in a

very responsible way, you will make mankind a better place to be. when you do not have to send men and women into the dirty, dangerous, in difficult places to be -- you look at fukishima, they knew they would not live much longer. we at technology today that can be utilized. windier about the natural disasters that take place. this is what technology allows you to do, and it will make for a better place, a more efficient and effective life, and i want my grandkids to be able to explore more and have a better future. host: long beach, california, democrats line. this is edward for our guest, michael toscano. caller: yes, hi.

good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am in california, so i wanted to say good night. guest: yes, you?re up early. caller: i had two questions for the speaker. what is the outlook for california, and have they done any studies on hacking into unmanned vehicles? guest: well, the issue of safety is important, but an electronic device that we have has to have the connections built into it so people can not hack into it or it is not in and certainly disrupted from operation. we go through great lengths, whether it be in the inking industry, the electronics industry, to make sure anything using electrons back and forth are done in a safe way. when you look at it, there is no leap ahead technology. the centers already exist. you can buy them at walmart or any electronics store. would you are doing is you are having a mobile platform that allows you to do it in a much more safe and efficient way than

we were doing things before. host: our guest, michael toscano, he is the president and ceo of the association holding this event in washington, d.c., and he will be with us for a half-hour. if you want to give him a call, he will stay with us. we will take a break, look around what is going on at the convention center. we have been talking a lot about unmanned vehicle systems. some do work on the ground as

well. host: you are talking about technology with michael toscano. we are here with michael fleming, the ceo of torque robotics. what have you invented? guest: we have invented a mode control and self-driving kits for any ground vehicle, so whether it is an suv, or a construction piece of equipment, we can convert that into an unmanned vehicle. that means the vehicle can be operated without anyone in the cab and we can place an operator and a safe distance. like mike mentioned with fukushima, that was an instance where we could not send workers into an area that had a certain

amount of radiation. what we can do is send a vehicle like the skid loader, have an operator miles away, and be able to perform the work necessary to mitigate the fukushima incident without exposing to radiation. host: you have partnered with caterpillar, and is this technology being used by the company? guest: we have a great relationship with caterpillar. we have worked with engineers to make sure our robotic kit can be quickly implemented, and by quickly i mean 30 minutes. host: how did you go about inventing this technology? guest: the origin was developed

from self-driving technology. this was commercialized for the mining market and the military market. there was technology adopted out of carnegie mellon. host: the defense advanced research program agency -- they do this type of technology -- creating the internet, advancing technology as we know it. so, the on what you just talked about for the government, what are the commercial uses for this technology? host: -- guest: we did work in

retrofitting an suv to enable the blind to drive. there was an event at the daytona international speedway where we have blind drivers racing around the speedway. it was a great event to bring awareness to this technology, and how it can reduce the threats and enable those that are disabled to do what you and i do every day. host: you were at virginia tech. who competed in the competition? guest: there were 89 teams. they were selected down to 11. three teams finished the competition, and we were lucky enough to have the technology and pardon the -- pardon it here at -- harden it. host: you were a student?

guest: i was a student, and i was very fortunate to hire those students. we could not have done it without them. host: what about the cost? guest: the base camp cost about $40,000. you can operate the skid loader several miles away. host: do you have a government contract yet? guest: we have a lot of government contracts. the military is excited about using this technology. anytime we create a distance between a war fighter and a major situation, it is a promising thing. host: are you using this in afghanistan? guest: yes. host: how is it being used? guest: rather than having a war fighter get in close proximity to an ied, they can perform the function robotically. host: michael fleming, ceo of torc robotics, thank you.

guest: thank you. host: it is an event sponsored by the association of unmanned vehicles international. president and ceo michael toscano is joining us. the previous guest talk about work with pentagon. does your association talk to the pentagon? guest: very much so. it is worked on in research labs. there is tremendous research being done. there are a lot of elementary school, high schools, colleges involved in the research of unmanned systems, and this is one of the great ways of getting young people involved in the science, mathematics and discovery process. we do work with darpa. host: ross. thank you for holding on.

caller: good morning. i have to share some concerns about this technology. there are a few reasons i have concerns about this technology. as we all witnessed over the last few months here, with the nsa and what has happened to our computers, cell phones, and information being stored, this appears to be another technology that could be abused a bit. i think if we do not have more laws in place there could be some very serious concerns in regards to these unmanned vehicles.

guest: ross, i has an individual, understand the concern from a big data standpoint about how data is collected, stored, disseminated and destroyed. that is what you are talking about. this technology, unmanned systems, has a large capacity to make everyone's life better. that is a tremendous upside you have to this technology. the technology is agnostic to the issue you are talking to. it is a different issue when talking about this capability. if you have ever had a situation with fires, floods or natural disasters -- 80% of all firefighters are volunteer. you want to make sure those men and women have the best tools for them to use when they execute the job they are given to do. in many cases, other people's lives are on the line. i understand your concern and it

is something we have to address in the big picture, but when you look at this technology, do not link them together into you have to hold the data because of those concerns. host: there was a story about a south african outdoor rock festival where people could order a beer and have it delivered by a drum. that prompted a response from rand paul -- "perhaps i am not against all drones." what does rand paul bring to the discussion in your opinion? guest: when you look at this technology, you can pick and choose the point you want to make, but let's look at delivering pizza or tacos or food, but when the monsoons and, regions are wiped out. how do you get medical supplies, their essential's, -- the bare essentials to people to keep people alive? using an unmanned system, you can do that. delivering in a more effective

and efficient way, that is a good capability to have, and if you use it in the appropriate way, you can save lives and make sure we do not have pandemic diseases around the world. host: and about senator paul's contribution to the conversation? guest: i will leave it at that. the senator has his viewpoint, and i am not sure what point he was trying to make. i know the capabilities of the technology and what it can do to help mankind. host: oklahoma city, oklahoma, republican line. bonnie. caller: did i hear the man say these drones are being used for

crop surveying? guest: they can be, yes. caller: i do not know if it was another gentleman or not, but america, you had better wake up. this surveillance program is going right to the mark of the beast. why do you think they need that surveillance thing? the antichrist is already here. the next is the black corpse, and he is famine. when you start to use the drones for surveying our crops and knowing where the food is, you're going to have to take the mark or starve to death. host: we talked about the issue of privacy. how often when you have conversations does the issue of privacy,? -- come up?

guest: it comes up often, and we try do have people understand the concerns and how we are doing with this with lawmakers, civil liberty groups in the proper stakeholders to make sure fourth amendment rights, privacy laws, peeping tom laws and all the laws that exist -- to ensure we are compliant with them. the me just say one more thing. right now, we have about 7 billion people in the world. by 2050, 37 years away, we will have 9 billion people. that is another 2 billion people on this planet. right now we do not have enough food to feed everybody. if we do not increase our yield and output in a more productive way, we will have difficulties in the future that will be tremendous in size. when i talk about using unmanned systems for agriculture, it is to help the farmers to know how to grow crops better than anyone else, do it in a much more

effective and efficient way to make sure we have food for the next couple of generations. host: orlando, florida. dan. democrats line. caller: as you are aware, there are tons being used overseas at home, with recent testing in operation florida and operation washington. i'm curious if you can give the difference in how small, tethered air stats compared to unmanned vehicles? guest: with an arrow step that is tethered, you have determined a cabling system that limits its

mobility, but allows you to have a more but -- more continuity or the carrying of a sensor package. the communication kit is now a hardwired. there is still a ground station and there is still a human being involved in the process. it is just a different version of what we are talking about, where the only difference is the communication link. it is an effect of, capable system, but it does have limitations in how far you can fly it or how you would utilize it, but it is a very effective technology and we are finding more and more use for the aerostat. host: our guest was the program manager for research and

development for nuclear safety and security for the secretary of defense, and an advisor on the roles of unmanned vehicle. he has bachelor of science degrees from the university of rhode island. cottonwood, alabama. independent line. caller: thank you. i was wondering how this works with policing agencies. could they do surveillance on a possible person they suspect of committing a criminal act such as developing a drug or whatever in the home, and is it possible for the agency to use this technology to procure video and stream it to a judicial official? it would be very easy. you could even use the current

one you could buy now and an ios and at a microphone to it. i wonder how effective that would be and how that would impede on the constitutional rights of our privacy. guest: ok. i hope i understand the question correctly, but the law that exists today for either warrants or any of the search matters, regardless of this technology, they are in place and they would have to abide by those same laws. the same laws that exist for manned systems or police helicopters, would exist for these. the only difference is the pilot is at a different location -- instead of being in the pilot

seat, he or she is at a safe location. whatever laws that exist, those are the ones we will have to follow. i am trying to make sure you understand the separation of the capability that is here and the concerns that we are having. again, from a law-enforcement standpoint, you have to remember the usage of this will be less than 5%. on the public safety side, when you're talking about firefighting, and i think everyone wants to make sure firefighters are given the best tools to put out the fire in a safeway, do their job and make sure they come home at night as well. the search-and-rescue, park rangers -- there are a lot of applications, and everyone fixates on the law enforcement. of the 18,000 law enforcement entities in this country, less than 600 have air assets, helicopters, and it is usually big cities that have them.

the rest of the folks that need to have that when you have a small police department that does not have the manpower, but basically the same crime, they still need to have the best resources to protect those men and women and the people that they serve. again, we have a structure in place. this is just one more tool that allows those men and women to do the job they do in a much more effective and efficient way to help save lives in the community in an appropriate way. host: mr. toscano, if more laws come into place, when, in your mind do the laws get to restrictive? guest: i am not sure i can answer that. i am not a lawyer, but i know the technology has a tremendous upside. we are fixating on the law enforcement side. even if that was taken off the

table, you will have 95% of the technology utilized to help mankind eat, enjoy life in a much more effective way, finding discoveries we never had before because it was too difficult to explore the bottom of a mountain, -- top le monde the mountain or bottom of the notion third -- ocean. host: bob. pennsylvania. caller: good morning. mr. toscano, how many times has a company like yours shown pictures like this to high school students to get them interested in the fields? all we hear about is the negative. why not get kids interested in the positive ways of helping one another? guest: you are spot on. these generations that are coming up -- i have a two and a half-year-old grandson. he is a digital native. he has no apprehension.

he can use an ipad easily. he will be utilizing this technology in elementary school, high school. we will have a couple hundred young, high school folks at this convention this week. we have a foundation that there whole purpose in life is to help educate young men and women on the science, technology, engineering and mathematics that exists around this technology. it is fun. it is the kids played with big toys. there is a passion people have an understanding how how it will make life a better place to live. host: we have found several websites where you can purchase

this type of technology. on twitter there is a question about an entry-level cost as far as the drone is concerned. what could someone get into if they were interested in buying one themselves? guest: if you go to our foundation, www.auvsi.org, we will get you the information. there are demonstrations here of what is being used in classrooms to help people understand how they can take three motors with piping and a flotation device and create something that they can operate in water tanks or in the ocean to do exploration.

it is fascinating. you watch the young men and women pick it up very quick. they are adaptable. it stimulates their minds and it is exciting. there are tremendous progress. if you get to the website, we can get even information. host: there is a link on our c- span site. don is asking -- once the technology becomes common, what prevents drone from being completely automated? guest: i do not like the word automated. there is only human being involved in it. we might tell something to do a particular mission. this is part of the evolution that we have. elevators have become autonomous, i guess, because you do not have a person taking you

up and down. this is happening more and more. in a different realm, looking at automated vehicles, in the future, you might have the ability to get from point a to point b, just by getting into a vehicle, telling it where you want to go and it will do it. right now in this country we have 87 billion hours of congestion -- man-hours -- lost to congestion. we have 32,000 deaths, costing us $256 billion a year in medicals -- medical and damage associated with accidents. does that mean you will not be able to drive your 1964 mustang?

the answer is no. just like when we introduced the automobiles, we did not do away with horses. people like to ride horses and have horses. the same would be true with cars. you will still have a car, but you might not have a car that drives that -- that you drive physically both ways, and now you can do more productive things like reading, exercising or texting, let young people do good -- people do. host: independent line. north carolina. good morning. caller: yes or no, can these unmanned vehicles the armed? guest: the answer is no. they cannot be launched from a civil aircraft. host: alabama. democrats line. caller: hi.

mr. toscano. guest: good morning. caller: something has me rattled. you found a way to get around the privacy law, the 400 foot policy love i going -- law by going from fixed wing and non- fixed wing. what other long can you get around? guest: i am not sure what you mean. the faa has regulated that there is no -- has mandated there is no fixed wing. -- fixed wing that can fly below 400 feet. what we are saying is below 400 feet is safe for operating the systems. safety is paramount. we need to make sure anything we put in the national airspace is done so in a safe manner.

host: mr. toscano, we see demonstrations of the types of things, what does the future hold in their size, shape and capability? guest: you hear people talk about moore's law, which is the computational capability to double at half the cost. we have seen a tremendous amount of advancement in high definition television, cell phones, automobiles. this is happening on a continuous basis. if i were to say to you go back and look at 10 years ago, which is five evolutions of moore's law, look at where we were. i will pick up my cell phone.

the cell phone in the year 2000 2% of the world had cell phone capability. 13 years later, 70% of the world as cell phone capability. that is a huge increase. i am asking you now, if we were to go five more evolutions in the future, the, what we would have with these capabilities. it is exciting and promising to have a better place to be on this planet and there is a tremendous opportunity for these unmanned systems to give you that capability. host: domestic sellers -- are they mainly produced in the united states and which states have the most type of these companies? guest: depending on who you talk to, i would say the united states still has an edge on this technology but it is a global technology and there are many other places that recognize this opportunity for the

manufacturing of the systems and are doing so as well. host: washington, d.c.. independent line. caller: good morning. i am a pakistani situated in the seat and i have spent the past few years doing research on drones, particularly the use of drones in pakistan. i was wondering if you could speak about the role of auvsi in the use of drones over places like pakistan and yemen and if you feel any responsibility for the loss of life? guest: that is a question that needs to be answered by our leadership, elected officials and military. this technology has a tremendous ability for saving lives and producing a better quality of life. i would say there are situations where the military has to perform to protect the freedoms of this country and of the

world. that is decisions that they make. host: at your event there, you have been greeted by protesters. there is a photo in "the washington times" of code pink. what has been your reaction to their presence? guest: i value the right of freedom of speech, and that is a prerogative and a right that everybody has. i do not think they have their facts and figures right. i cannot believe they are against feeding people in the world and having safer operations for the men and women that in many cases might have saved their lives in the past. host: what you mean by getting the facts and figures right? guest: the ability to use this technology in appropriate ways

would allow life-saving capability. host: there is a viewer asking about the possibility of interception of the controlled vehicles. is that a concern. guest: any electronic device has the ability to have situations that interfere with the technology, but we go to great lengths to make sure the precautions and safeguards are put in their. host: fill up venice, florida. democrats line. caller: keeping with moore's law, with the increase in the tech savvy generation, some of them going to a field somewhere, putting weaponry on it, and committing crimes -- how do you prevent that, the same with the submarine robots, a dirty bomb

or something coming in that way? it is just a thought and a concern. guest: this is obviously a valid concern and something that has to be addressed, and it is no different than the world we live in today. you can do the same thing with a man system as opposed to an unmanned system. we under stand the concerns -- we understand the concerns. again, these are illegal acts. we need to make sure bad people do not do bad things. that is what causes us -- in some cases this is technology that can prevent those people from doing that stuff. host: as far as the event, we heard from you, we have seen some forms. what other things happen? guest: a lot of good interaction.

we spoke about the young people. these are just big kids. when you have the conversations taking place, these men and women are going through discovery for many, many years. there are business-type opportunities. there are educational aspects with people having a better understanding of what this technology can do. it is an outstanding forum. i encourage people to look this technology up, understand how it can make your life better. you have our website. host: randy. michigan. independent line. caller: my opinion is these drones will be armed and used against the american people, and mr. toscano, you are making dollars to sell us on these drones, and i wonder if the american people have gotten on start pace.com to look at the blimps that are looking at us every night with reconnaissance research being done.

do a search on the homeland security blimps. what are they doing in the sky every night? host: caller, thank you. mr. toscano? guest: we have government officials, people we entrust to protect our rights and make sure they are not violated. this is a safe, free place to live, and i support those individuals. host: glenn. new york. independent line. caller: i watch glenn beck. i recommend everybody watching. he had a young man on there that knew a lot about drones. you are not telling the whole

truth here. you're making it sound really good. it will help things. they will not back the technology up, and everyone should understand that, but the thing is you do not need a pilot. all you need is a computer technician. you can computerize these things, and they have done it, and program them with a gps, and they will do anything you want. you can go have dinner, come back, and they will give you your pictures or whatever. they will be weapon is my somebody. in fact, they're already have been. there was a guy who had a drone that was specifically built to shoot down a government drone. host: do you have a question for the guest? caller: we have to get the laws in place, but technology has outstripped our ability. the nsa, everybody -- the

technology is way past what humans are capable of doing. host: what about the idea that technology sometimes surpasses laws put in place and how does that relate to your industry? guest: i cannot disagree that the technology is fast moving and sometimes our laws take more time because we have to make sure we get them right the first time so that we do not have to change them. it is no different with any type of revolutionary technology or evolving technology that we have seen. i can agree with that point, but i cannot agree with anyone that and they will weapon eyes these things. if you fire one of those weapons, and you cause any damage, first, you will be sued, and you will be thrown in jail. that happens today. you can have an automobile that can go 120 miles an hour. if you do, and you kill

somebody, you'll be thrown in jail because you missed use that technology. obviously, you can tell i am passionate about this. you cannot break the law. when it comes to the utilization of any technology. host: michael toscano is the president and ceo of the association for unmanned vehicle systems international and he joins us from their event in washington, d.c. thank you. guest: thank you. >> who will come back to our conversation on drones in just a moment. a newsmakers we will talk to the ceo of heritage action for america about lobbying and gathering grass- roots support for legislation like the farm bill. here's a preview. think that is probably what is likely to happen. i think the other possibility is we get an extension. last year we had a one-year extension.

we have beenrs trying to meet with frank lucas and talk to the house committee about what would a modern to the first century farm bill look like? we love the opportunity to do that. i am excited what is being done in the financial services committee. there is a past fact, which is kind of the last bill that you would ever have to pass on fannie and freddie because it winds them down. it is something that allows us to show what true conservative values would be. opportunity tohe have a one-year extension on the farm bill and then work with the added committee on updating foreign policy from the 1930s statism to put he first century and to -- 1930 status one of the 21st century. >> tomorrow night, minnesota

democratic senator amy cobo shargh, she will be at the annual wingding fundraiser in iowa. >> when we think about how america can be as strong as the and eight of eight of -- the most innovative it has been in decades, it has brought everything from the pacemaker to the post-it note the facebook. where we are today because we were able to invest in those opportunities to invest in scientific research, to invest in innovation, to invest in entrepreneurship. i believe these are things that democrats and republicans can agree on. , a comprehensive tax reform, bringing the debt down in a balanced way, these are things we should agree on across-the-board. is the problem? first of all we know that some republicans are willing to work on these kinds of things.

build -- of the you were some republicans in iowa that want to move our country forward. ofortunately, a group idealists in the house of representatives are holding this country back. you all know that we passed a farm bill in the united states senate and had the support of our great secretary of agriculture and former iowa governor. it had the support of both of your senators. it certainly has the support of representative reedley. -- representative greatly. we were able to get support across the bow. it has strengthened our safety net for our farmers, it has reduced the debt by $24 billion over the last form bill -- over the last farm bill.

we have oure conservation programs in place and i am proud to have been appointed to be on the senate con -- on the senate side of the conference committee to get that farm bill done. literally, i keep asking our staff every day, having republicans in the house call to set up that committee, i know they haven't. have a call today? i know they have not. that bill is going -- that bill is not going anywhere. of keep our years to set up to shredded to pieces because they wanted to eliminate intrusion programs that have kept millions of kids and seniors and working people from hunger. not want believe me, i will leave you with on quote. this is not a bastion of liberalism. papers a conservative based in fargo. they ran an editorial board last week and it said, "make no

mistake about it, house republicans are to blame for the farm bill's stall. this is not a political conclusion, it is a statement of facts." prosecutor, i like facts and evidence. the house has to bring this bill to a conference committee so we can get it done. [applause] >> we will have all of her speech tomorrow night at 9:45 eastern time here on c-span. back to our conversation on drones and how law enforcement uses them in the united states. this is about half an hour. law-enforcement is also adding its voice to how it uses the technology. alan frazier, who is not only a deputy sheriff at the grand forks, north dakota, sheriffs department, but he is also a science professor. welcome to "washington journal." guest: good morning. thank you. host: from your law enforcement

hat, can you give viewers a sense of how departments like yours are using drones? guest: it has been in public safety -- looking for lost persons, assisting fire departments with assessing fire scenes. as far as i know there has been no overt use whatsoever -- covert use whatsoever. it has been assessing damage after natural disasters. host: how many drones do you have and how often do you use them? guest: we have four. we have only use them on two occasions to date. host: y two years of training? guest: we are using a variety of systems for distinctly different aircraft and doing a lot of situational training.

prior to using them in actual situations, we wanted to make sure personal was comfortable with the operation of the systems and comfortable with using them in simulated law enforcement and disaster scenarios. host: is having this technology cost prohibitive? guest: i would not say it is cost prohibitive. it is one of the great advantages of small uas. you have to understand these are completely different systems than what the department of defense is using. these are small systems. think an rc controlled aircraft. they're much smaller and more affordable. the 19,000 law agencies that mr. toscano mentioned, those agencies have access to some type of i in the sky to be able i in the sky to be able to do that disastrous assessment.

host: what was the cost? guest: the most inexpensive is approximately 25 thousand dollars, and the most expensive is about $170,000. depending on which system we were discussing, that is the price range. host: our guest is joining us for a half-hour, maybe longer, to talk about law enforcement concerns when it comes to the use of this technology. alan frazier, from north dakota. you can asked him questions on three lines. mr. alan frazier, one is a warrant or some type of legal document come into play when it comes to the use of this technology? guest: at any point that we feel we would be infringing on a

reasonable expectation of privacy of the public. it is interesting, pedro, is the use of this technology in a domestic situation is so new that the cases have not filtered through the court system, so we are relying i merrily on man air support cases -- primarily on demand air support cases. ishares department in florida and utilized amanned helicopter to conduct observation of private property from about 400 feet above ground level. we are using that as a guideline. if we were a to conduct surveillance below 400 feet, we would seek a search warrant. we have not had to do that because we have not used it for those type of your law enforcement purposes, but were

that type of situation to come up, that is the guideline we are currently utilizing. host: who would be the person you turn to for the one? -- weren't -- warrant. guest: we would go through our detectives. host: what you think about the idea of moral laws put in place on the federal and state level, and how does that affect activities? guest: it is premature for states and the federal government to enact laws at this point. i would compare it to telecommunications. telephone technology was in place for many years before laws were enacted to provide detection. at this point, enacting laws at the federal or state level would have a chilling affect on the expansion of this technology. to my knowledge there has been no problems with the use of technology and that law enacted

now would be fixing something that is not broken. let's let the technology evolve and expand, and if and when problems are identified, that is a time to start legislating and enacting laws that might prevent future problems. host: as a law enforcement official, how do you talk to people about privacy concerns? guest: i tried to tell them about the protections that we have. at the grand forks sheriff's department, there is extensive policy directed solely at our unmanned units, and a significant part of that policy directs deputies and personnel to respect the rights of the public, the fourth amendment and case law in the area of aerial searches. we also utilize an outside committee of 15 that was put together by the university of north dakota and it involves the

community, but with safety, university personnel and even the government officials. we look to it as being our guideline to what is reasonable. it was chosen at the university of north dakota. host: would you say there are those that are skeptical about your own use? i would. especially in the beginning there was some misunderstandings. with some committee members the thought that what we were going to be using was something akin

to a global hawk or a predator. there was some education that occurred at the beginning of our that have a greater understanding of the type of technology that local law enforcement lancie is. the grand forks north dakota sheriffs department and to be the sheriff there, as well as a professor of aerospace scientist at the university of north dakota. chuck is up first on our independent line. go ahead. caller: i am 63 years old. i am no spring chicken. when i hear about these new devices for law enforcement, military, and so on and so forth, i flashback to a poster i saw when i was a young kid about the berlin wall, and it was about a russian soldier running across barbed wire to escape communist russia. the big caption was "isn't it strange that they have to have guards to watch the guards?"

my question to you is you say you have a committee to check on the people that are in control of these things, but what happens if one person decides to do damage? the damage is done before you come to your committee. should this type of power be put in the hands of people that might have emotional or mental problems and they are in a powerful position? guest: you have a two part question. let me address the screening of the personnel utilizing the technology. every law enforcement entity in the nation has a screening process, and in most cases, a robust psychological screening. we are utilizing law enforcement personnel supervising the operations that have been through this weaning process. so, hopefully, -- been through that process is so, hopefully,

that is limiting or reducing the amount of people that would have the ability to use this technology inappropriately. secondly, with any type of technology or tool, there is the potential a law enforcement officer or someone in public safety would misuse the technology. yes, there is the possibility. what would happen if that is detected? as a law enforcement agency, we would investigate that as we would for any allegation of misconduct, and if the allegation was sustained, we would discipline the deputy with anything from a reprimand, to potential criminal prosecution. we take the trusting of the people -- we take the trust we have been given very seriously. i am the chief pilot. i would be the line level supervisor. i work for a lieutenant who is

the first up in the administrative chain and he answers directly to the sheriff. host: tim from wisconsin on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: the question i have -- host: tim, go ahead. caller: sorry. how would a person from a ground-level identify these unmanned vehicles? would they have numbers written on their like they do on a plane, and if so, how could a person without binoculars be able to see them? guest: that is an excellent question. the altitude at which most of these aircraft are operating is at or below 400 feet above ground level. we comply with the police guideline in that our aircraft are easy to see as far as the

coloration of them. they are in bright colors. there is no attempt on our part to make these aircraft covert. our policy at the grand forks sheriff's department prohibits covert use of the aircraft. it would be relatively easy for someone on the ground to see the aircraft. they do not currently have numbers on them. that is possibly a good idea as the number of vehicles increases, a right we are you the only agency in the entire state -- but right now we are the only agency in the entire state operating these aircraft, so anyone who saw the aircraft could make a reasonable guess it is associated with our program and it is widely known we are the only agency operating the aircraft. at this point, it would be natural for someone who had a concern about the aircraft to call the grand forks sheriff's

department. host: what is attached to the aircraft? justin -- just a camera? guest: just a camera. most of the technology you could buy at best buy. we have some infrared technology that looks for heat signatures, but it is relatively low resolution infrared. that is a mechanism of the weight of the payload, the ability of the small aircraft to carry a payload. they could not carry something that would have the sophistication we could put on a manned aircraft. host: one policy -- what policy exists for how this information is handled and kept? guest: excellent question. in our policy we have a minimization section that would dictate that deputies would delete nonessential images and those are images that are classified as not having

evidentiary value or value to the current search for a lost person or assessment of a disaster. they are in imminent -- immediately eliminated in the field. there is no archiving whatsoever. if an image has value in evaluating the effects of a natural disaster, that evidence or those images are handled as evidence, so they are safeguarded by the deputy and booked into property and evidence of the grand forks sheriff's department or the other agency we are assisting because we actually have a mutual aid area that encompasses 16 counties, and each department has slightly different evidence protection policies. the policy that would dictate how that evidence is stored would be the individual agencies policy that we are assisting at

the time. host: because you are the chief operator, are you the one that makes the call to whether something is essential or nonessential? guest: no, that could be me, but more commonly it would be one of our system operators. we feel they are in the best position because they view the images and actually control what we are capturing to determine what has evidentiary valley and what does not work -- value and what does not. host: pennsylvania. republican line. this is george. caller: good morning. thank you for your program. how are these small drones different from the old -- not old, but radio-controlled aircraft that amateurs fly around here? i have a radio-controlled boat. i guess it is satellite and peter technology. is that the difference, more sophistication? in some cases there is no

difference. 3difference. any of them is have it in remote aircraft so there is very little difference. their genesis is small department of defense systems and in those cases just the testing this the components have gone through to determine their robustness is greater than what we would see in an r.c. aircraft. but as far as the sophistication of cameras aboard the aircraft, in every case i can think of no more sophisticated than r.c. hobbyists using. host: jeremy up next from lawrence, kansas. independent line. caller: yes. i think that everybody wants the emerging technology to be used for the safeguarding of people and public servants of good faith. the issue becomes the footing that is taken and in this case the kind of technology the footing taken by the federal government is a replication of

the footing taken when the federal government started working with local law enforcement around the alleged war on drugs, which is militaristic that inputs weapons of war and tools of war and a footing of that type into the hands of law enforcement. so, i would ask your guest to comment. when we see the actual implementation of federal law with these drone technologies, it is being done -- the homeland security has named generals as the people who are going to oversee this, not civilians. it is a violation and if you see the replication in terms of the war on terror it is what has created centers around the country to harmonize and have local law enforcement to do the bidding of federal government

and disrupt constitutionally protected assembly and peaceful speech and local law enforcement to ensure they will protect the constitution against the feds if necessary. guest: well, i'm an inadequate person to address the federal government's role and way they are addressing the issue of unmanned aircraft systems. but i can tell you that at a local level we are not addressing it as a militaristic application of the technology. we have a completely transparent policy with the press. any legitimate member of the press that has contacted us from the local paper to my knowledge news networks we have cooperated with them, given them access to the technology, allowed them to watch our training and given extensive interviews. so, there is no sniper on the grassy knoll. we are using it for humanitarian purposes and we want the public to know about that and we believe the public has a right

to know about the capability of 9to know about the capability of the technologies and how we are using them. host: does your state have any laws concerning drone operation? guest: no. there was a bill that made its way in the house and senate but didn't get senate approval. so, that was defeated in the senate. but that was similar to many of the bills floating around through state legislatures throughout the country and had some, i believe, draconian effects and i think it would have had a clinicaling effect on the expansion of the technology and we are at a point where we don't know what we don't know and unless we can deploy the aircraft systems we are not going to be able to determine what their true capabilities are. and if privacy concerns are going to surface with the technology. host: you said draconian in nature. give an example. guest: just the reporting requirements.

every flight has to be reported. there was a clause that said you had to archive all of the footage which on one hand you would think that allows the citizenry or independent body to look at what we were capturing. but at least from our point of view at the sheriff's department, there were two problems with that. one, we felt that was counter to the privacy of the public to be amassing potentially hundreds of hours of many deployments of footage in many cases that would involve people not directly involved in the incident we were trying to analyze or gather evidence on. so, we felt there was a problem there. secondarily, there is a problem especially as we start using the technology to have enough server space it archive say a large city that uses the technology frequently, being able to

archive hundreds of hours of footage that is taken from it. so, we felt those things were somewhat misguided in the bill and were going to present limitations to us technically and privacy-wise. host: david from arizona, democrats line. caller: it is arkansas. i'm a first-time caller. i have been listening to y'all and what seems to be the main problem with this technology is people's privacy and how it is going to be used. i was wondering -- and this may have already been touched on in your conversations prior -- is there any way to catch a g.p.s. unit to the drone in which that would be archived, not necessarily the footage but just the locations, where the drone was flying, times and stuff like

that that could generally be, if it is for humanitarian purposes, that can be accessed through one's iphone for example where the citizenry would know exactly where this drone is, where it is flying and what it is doing? thank you very much. guest: the answer is yes. in fact, each of the four aircraft we are current qualityizing are g.p.s. enabled. they capture that data and we do keep that. so there are mission files created each time we fly the aircraft. the g.p.s. coordinates that the aircraft were flown at are captured. now, making them available to the public, i think in a humanitarian mission there would be no problem with that at all. although aware only using them for humanitarian missions now there is the potential that they might use them for, say, a tactical mission in the fort

dealing with barricaded hostage situations, that type of thing. i think the answer is yes. i think we are walking along the edge of privacy concerns there as well. so, is it feasible that that information could be released to the public? yes. but it is something i would want to consult closely with our state's attorney on as to whether or not that with infringe upon the privacy of the public we are protecting. host: he's with the university of north dakota and mr.?frazier there was a story stemming from last year about your state when it came it drones. it said a north dakota court primarily upheld the first ever use of unmanned drone in the assist of the arrest of an american citizens. host: can you expand on this

case and arguments being made by the person in question? guest: i don't have a wealth of information on this case, but i'm personally acquainted with the sheriff of nelson county where it incident transpired. i have met with him on it. in fact, as the incident was -- it was a multi-week incident from his first contact with this particular individual and that individual's family. i want to applaud the sheriff for the restraint he utilized in that incident. essentially, it is something that i think cover expanded into a waco type of incident or ruby ridge type of incident, and through his, i think, very keen, thoughtful consideration of how

to handle it, in reaching out to other experts in the area about an appropriate way to peacefully resolve that, i think he should be applauded for it. it is interesting, there was an article in the "los angeles times" that wanted to characterize that incident as cattle rustling but that was the original thing cattle wandered on to his property but he allegedly said was going to utilize force to prevent sheriff deputies from coming on his property. so the use of the system didn't gather evidence. it was a citizen and officer safety tool to determine when it would be safe for those deputies to approach the accused persons and take them in custody on lawfully issued warrants from a judge in nelson county.

host: call from silver spring, maryland, independent line. caller: thank you. my question is regarding the use of these unmanned vehicles in public areas. we spoke about private areas and the way that would be. but say would there be drones on the highway taking a picture of my car when it is going fast? or, for example, god forbid there was an attack on american soil would these drones aid in capturing terrorists? i think these kinds of events, it could be said that unmanned vehicles -- drones -- would serve a beneficial event and with being implemented and just erode our privacy and in the end we are going to end up with very loose laws that will be misused and mistreated as we can see what the government is trying to

do but in is a lot of corruption and that is my question. guest: thank you for your question. you really went into a broad spectrum from speed enforcement on a highway to trying to prevent terrorism on u.s. soil. on the low side of that spectrum the utilization of these types of systems for speed enforcement, i hope we don't see that and don't think we will. they are not particularly adept at that. usually that requires markings on the roadway and these aircraft have very low maximum speeds and to pace a vehicle on a highway or key two marks on a roadway to do speed enforcement within their focal point of their camera simultaneously is probably beyond the capability of most of these aircraft. host: there is a town in colorado deer trail that is offering a $25 permit to shoot down drones and $100 if they shoot down a federal operated drone. you may have not heard of this

or encountered something similar. your thoughts. . i have heard of it and my understanding is it was something that was proposed as a city council resolution. i don't know the outcome. i certainly hope that the city fathers in that town determined that that was an inappropriate statue. i think shooting at anything in the air is dangerous. when you put bullets up in the air they are coming down somewhere. they are not staying up there to bring down this unmanned aircraft. i think it is almost humorous and ridiculous. but were that town to actually pass that ordinance i would hope the federal government would step in through the f.a.a. anden force federal statutes that make it a federal felony to fire at an aircraft. host: one more call from california, independent line. host: my question is about

weather and drones and having something in the air can be dangerous. what are the guidelines as far as using drones during marginal or bad weather? do you finded about weather can keep you from being able to use them? with you use them where you wouldn't send out a manned aircraft or are you more cautious with unmanned vehicles? guest: currently we are more cautious. we have a lot of different situations and all of the aircraft are dispatched through the university of north dakota flight operations and we have a robust safety system and operate over 130 manned aircraft. and each of our unmanned aircraft is dispatched and not only the pilot has it make the determination that it can be made same and somebody who doesn't have a dog in the fight and experienced supervisor who

is not at the unmanned aircraft system operation location must also agree that that operation can be performed safely. we comply with university of north dakota flight policies and procedures and we have specific sections that relate to each of our unmanned aircraft system air frames and they have specific maximum wind components. we can only operate the aircraft during daytime hours. we can only operate the aircraft when the ceiling or lowest clouds are at 1,000 feet and we have at least three statute mails of visibility. so, weather is a factor and because of the small mass of these aircraft wind is a huge factor. so, most of these systems can't be operated in winds greater than 15 or 20 miles an hour. host: alan frazier from the grand forks sheriff's department. thank you. guest: thank you, pedro. host: again, we will have more of this conversation taking a look at this topic. up next we will look at the privacy concerns that go hand in this is a mosque near ramsey

square in cairo. the video comes to us currency -- to us courtesy about zero. security forces stormed after firing tear gas. hundreds of supporters were there. they were protesting ousted president mohamed morsi. security forces rounded up the protesters and cleared up the mosque. across egypt, 173 people were killed on friday. that is according to government statistics. supporters marching for the return of the deposed president and the end of military will. say theyauthorities are looking for a way to legally dissolve the muslim brotherhood in that is the group that the leader, mohamed morsi, who became president, was in charge

of before being ousted in july. according to a spokesman, they are looking for a way to ban muslim brotherhood. they elected the president about a year ago. protesters say the are going to continue protesting until he is reinstated. we return now to the conversation from washington journal about drones. this is part of the conversation -- this part of the conversation deals with civil liberties. we have been showing you sights and sounds. you have met folks who represent the industry, who represent law enforcement. joining us here in a washington d.c. set, a voice the deals with privacy concerns that a lot of you have mentioned. j stanley, aclu speech, privacy, and technology project.

he serves as their senior policy analyst as well as the editor of the future blog. the event, you heard a lot of the voices this morning. the industry says this is a good technology to use because it replaces manpower in some cases. there are some laws and standards in place to make sure correctly. are done what are your concerns about this type of technology? it is true technology will have a lot of good uses. it is a very powerful surveillance technology and we just need to put it to play some good basic rules to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of the technology without having to worry that from the moment you walk out of your front door to when you get home at 90 your invisible -- some invisible i am the sky is tracking your every move. we do not have a problem if police are carrying out a raid on a house and they want to use

it drone as part of the backup, we do not have a problem using it for search and rescue or other uses like that in what we do not want to see is drones used all the time. the technology is here. of dronest employment are very limited by law enforcement today. there is a huge is technology itself amazing. most of it is not legal to use. there are concerns that are conceding very slowly. is there some case or evidence?

as a matter of fact. it might be something else. we had seen specific instances where law enforcement indicated their desire to put the watch on entire cities. in utah the mayor wanted to acquire a blimp and to watch over certain neighborhoods. in ohio we saw manned aircraft to videotape everybody all the time their arching technologies

that can watch 25 square mile area and record every pedestrian, where they start where they finish their journey, put that in databases. . days. in the very early the potential is huge. is here.hy there >> easier to talk about privacy concerns. you can tweet us. so whyple of callers should you be so worried?

guest: that is a reaction we often hear about privacy questions and there are a number of answers. first of all there's a lot of things that are not illegal but you want to keep private whether singing in the shower or what your salary is our financial information. i don't want somebody following me around that knows in my life and it not their business. that is my right as an american. also, you say i haven't done anything wrong and one answer to that is are you sure you haven't done anything wrong. there are a lot of laws on the books that are obscure and if some prosecutor you get falsely accused of a crime and maybe you get exonerated from that but the prosecutor digs it pin things on you and they will find something on you there is a good chance if your life is an open book. host: we live in an age where

even in washington, d.c. there are cameras, red late cameras and technology taking information about us any way. why not think even the use of drones may ultimately add to that technology? guest: it is true, we are living in a revolutionary time and there are challenges to our privacy and we work on a number of privacy issues. cell phone tracking, n.s.a. surveillance, we should have a right to communicate and send e-mails without worrying the government is keeping copies or copies of who we are talking to. we think that it is important to put in place privacy protections on drones and it is important to act on other technologies. i think that in this technological age there are ways we will lose our privacy. there are other ways in which we don't have to sit back, the technology is not in control, we are in control. for example, we have surveillance cameras all over the country, but almost none of

them have microphones and that is not because they are difficult or expensive. it is because our wire tapping laws make it problematic to put microphones on cameras in public places. we put an expression of values in the law and it changed the way the technology was implemented. people who say you can't stop technology, there's nothing you can do, i think that is not a good way to think because we are in control of our values. if we do nothing, then i think that the privacy that americans have always enjoyed and expected as part of our constitutional heritage all of that may disappear. host: jay stanley on this discussion. first call is george from west plains, missouri, independent line. host: good morning. my first concern is as far as the privacy issue goes we all know we have been peeked on by the government so that is not a

big issue and we are all right with that, it is not that big a deal. but my concern and question is what kind of safeguard is the government going it take to ensure that terror cells that are hiding in this country are in the going it use these to kill americans here like they have been doing. every attack on us has come from within our country. using what we have against us. is there anything that they can do to stop that before they get a hold of it? guest: well, i would say first of all i'm not sure i agree with the premise that the government watches us so we should throw up our hands and not worry about it. we do despite the technology and n.s.a. what we regard as unconstitutional spying we have a lot of strong privacy

protections and we should fight for that. in terms of use of drones for terrorist attacks, a drone is a tool like any other and will be used for the full range of human intelligence and imagination and evil probably and we just need to do the best we can to manage that. there was already somebody who was charged with a terrorist plot planning it fly an unmanned aircraft with explosives into the capitol building, i believe. host: republican line from pennsylvania. organic. host: good morning, mr.?stanley. we already have hundreds of cameras on telephone poles. what is the difference between having 100 cameras or a drone? what is the difference between having one officer watching a city with a drone or hiring 100 more or 1,000 more to put on the street? the constitution nowhere does it say that you cannot look and see anything that is in sight is

lawful. to use in an investigation. guest: i think that is a very good question and very logical question. in some ways drones are just an aerial version of surveillance cameras on the ground, and we at the aclu and those who carry about privacy don't love the fact our public spaces are becoming networked with video cameras not just independent cameras but what we are seeing is networks of cameras run by the government, which is a new thing and brand-new in american life. i think drones do bring another element into it, which is they can hear from the sky and peer into private property and do so

in a systematic way. when you have police officers in a city, number one when you are being watched by a police officer you know you are being watched by a police officer. he or she can see you and you can see them. so there is an equality there. when there's something in the sky you may not know you are being watched. and number two, is the systematic nature of it. it is not that a police officer sees this or that but the things

that can be recorded constantly and systematically everything recorded. i think one of the things we're seeing in a you believe can of cities are people complaining because police are setting up video cameras that actually point to their front door, front of the house. i think most americans would not want a government camera focused on the front door. i think that is what tkropbs have the potential to do. host: here is linda from knoxville, tennessee, democratic line. caller: hi. time. ok. i want to make an argument against the false analogy argument that comes up all the time. pedro made the same argument earlier in this segment saying we have cameras on the streets. really, what is the difference to have drones? looked at the display of force and said yes, it is not the quantity that counts, it the quality. then lenin turned to him and said smiling yes, but quantity has a quality all its own. meaning you get enough of something it creates a qualitative difference that violates the false analogy.

so, when the price of surveillance becomes small you get more surveillance. so, in a drug surveillance you have to put two officers in a police car and follow the suspect that is expensive. you use it for the most important things. when a service bureau is willing to give you 1,000 g.p.s. tracking devices and computers for $30 a month you get more surveillance. that is is wrong with drones. it will get cheaper and there will be more and in the end the qualitative difference you will have no more freedom. guest: those are excellent points and you have put them very well. one question i often here is we already have police headquarters and we have had them for decades. what is the difference?

the answer is as you were saying police helicopters are very expensive. you have to have ground crews and maintenance and pilot shifts and so forth and it is expensive for a police department to run a helicopter so it is less likely to overuse it. but when it is cheap and easy they tend to be overused. in terms of quantity versus quality the supreme court is dealing with this same issue. a police officer who is standing on the street corner and sees you drive by know you were at this corner at this time. but if you have a g.p.s. tracker on your car and tracks you 28 days straight this changes things. so the supreme court decided that the police cannot do that without a warrant. part of the issue drones is the potential for location tracking. host: alan frazier was on before

and talked about the process his sheriff's department goes through. we have a viewer off twitter who asked who watches the watchers. what safeguards are in place to minimize abuse from the police. guest: i think people like alan, who are sort of the pioneers of this technology, they are being very careful. they are putting in place excellent collection and balances and oversight mechanic numbers. but these are early days. i think it is something like 30,000 police departments in the united states. we will see all kinds of things and we're going to see if the technology and safety rules permit, we will see some police departments that won't to use this for pervasive surveillance. host: whether are best practices in there case? guest: we would like to see rules that sort of define when the police can use drones. when they have evidence, when they have reason to believe that it will collect evidence of wrongdoing in emergency situations or reasonable nonlaw enforcement uses. in emergencies and so forth. we would like to see rules in place that govern how video that is collected is stored and how long it is retained, who it is shared with, put in place some

good best practices around that. then we also think that there ought to be openness rules so the police departments are open and federal agencies about how they use the technology. police and federal agencies often need to be confidential about the details of particular investigations, but when it comes it a tool with such implications for our public life as citizens that is a discussion that ought to be public. too often what we see is what i call policy making by prekaourplt where there is new technology with privacy implications and instead of having an open discussion they just buy it and start using it. we have seen there with license plate scanners. they are recording the locations of americans all over the country in increasing numbers. we don't want to see that happen with drones or other technology. there should be a public discussion about the rules and police departments should be open about what their policies are. host: we have a call from takoma, washington. caller: number one, informational question.

i read that there was something like 800,000 people who have the same level of clearance as mr.?snowden. is that correct? guest: i don't know the exact numbers but there is an enormous number of people with security clearances in the united states. i believe it is in the millions. caller: my point in is how long before girl friends, wives, come forward because they have been abused by their spouses at work, jealous husband, et cetera, there's got to be a pretty large number to come out of that initial policeman. has the aclu come across any evidence of that sort of shenanigans? guest: shenanigans is sort of that. there is the legal and illegal privacy invasion.

illegal is when you have particular law enforcement bad apples carrying out personal abuses. in new york city, a police helicopter that was supposed to be watching a big bicycle protest turned its camera and filmed a couple making love on a pitch black rooftop and the new york police refused to apologize when the tape came out. that is the kind of because we are worried about. we have seen abuses of police data bases where officers do searches on their ex-wife's new by friends and that is a concern. i think the best practice we are increasingly seeing is put in place auditing mechanisms so say a particular video that was created by a drone, every time

that is accessed or copied or what have you it is recorded. the officer's identity is recorded so any kind of abuse can be traced. host: kim from new york, independent line. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: my question is what if they end up using this information to create lawsuits that might not have merit, and then the person defending themselves has to spend all of this money on legal fees and they could even lose their house or their savings or whatever because there is some shenanigans going on in the legal system? guest: well, i think that liability issues is a big concern around drones, especially private sector use of drones. i think that one of the fears in general of surveillance is, as i said earlier, there are so many laws on the books. it is illegal to own protected leather products from peru and you might be breaking a law

without knowing it and there are so many laws on the books that if a government agency wanted to go after you they could probably find something to pin on you. that is one reason that excessive surveillance is getting too much power to the government. it gives too much power to the government and disrupts the balance of power. individuals are supposed to be the boss of the government in a democratic society and if you give the government too much power it is unhealthy.

host: states have enacted laws about drones. how many and how effective are they? guest: we have seen drone legislation proposed in over 40 states. i believe four or five have passed legislation. it is still active in 30-something states. it -- for somebody who works on technology issues i have never seen such a grassroots upswelling of concern about technology and it reflects legitimate concerns over where it can go. they are all over the map. some are very good, some are probably overbroad, some weak. but overall i think that it is a healthy development and shows that americans are eager it defend their privacy. host: are they effective? guest: many of them are. they put in place on controls when the government can use the technology and we will see over time how they evolve and how the technology use evolves. but it is good it start with a good strong principle to protect our privacy. host: first, we should let you know there discussion is based in part because of the techniques of an want this week in washington, d.c. that is the so, of unmanned vehicle systems international holding their event in washington, d.c. at the

walter e. washington convention center. we have been talking to people throughout the morning from the site. our conversation now turns to privacy with jay stanley of the aclu. we hear next from lisa, north augusta, south carolina. independent line. caller: i would like to know what are some of the federal and state laws that would protect the people that would like to come forward and bring forward -- i mean they really don't -- one of the things they count on is privacy in being able to stay anonymous. so, how do these drones and the ability it use the drones -- i myself have been within an arm's reach of watching somebody use a drone in the city. but i would like to know are

there any federal or state laws that -- and any audit mechanisms -- that the general public can go to and research? guest: one thing we've been concerned about with drones is our existing privacy laws are not really adequate it protect us from this technology. we have the constitution, for the amendment which sets clear limits, for example, police almost certainly can't use a drone to invade where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy like your home and can't fly up to the third floor window and look in without a warrant. there are peeping tom laws on the books. in general it is very unclear how the courts moving forward are going to rule about whether or not a drone can follow you around in public, whether it would be stationed and watch a neighborhood and video your back

yard 24-7, 365. as we said, there are states that have passed laws on drones putting limits on how the authorities can use them. but i think what we have called for is a good strong standard federal law like one that has been proposed by the republican from texas so we don't have to worry about this. once we put the operatives concerns at rest we can use it for the potentials out there without worrying about the cloud of big brother. host: what are the high points of the powe promise? guest: it would been the weaponization of drones. that is one key thing.

host: is there an appetite in congress to get this legislation done? guest: i think that there's been a lot of interest in there issue. it is a very difficult environment for anything to pass so who knows. but i think what we are seeing in the states is a strong indicator that a lot of people in congress are hearing from constituents and there is a lot of concern about this. host: jim is up next from new york city, democrat's line. caller: good morning. host: you are on. caller: i worked as a commercial airline pilot in this country and the concern about personal information is one thing. you just mentioned not doing drone work that volumes weaponization. if you look at the way the united states uses these things overseas, the united states has a temporary advantage in this area and i'm really dread being the day when there is fatalities related to a drone. there is another side of this that will be way more serious if some legislative action isn't taken at this point? host: such as? caller: that is my point.

not only weaponization but safety of other people in the sky and safety of international people in the middle east. you walk outside the door and there is a drone. better start running. is that where we're heading in this country as well? guest: one thing we've said is that we really need to draw a strict line. no weaponized drones in the united states. there's been a pretty broad consensus on the international so, of chiefs of police have recommended against the weaponization of drones. the industry has recommended against that. proposed legislation has recommended against it. who knows -- at the same time

there have been police officers suggesting that they could be fixed for nonlethal weapons for crowd control or other weapons. who knows what will happen in the future but that is a very celebrate line we need to set. the safety issues are significant. the f.a.a. is very concerned about that. that is why they have been sort of moving very slowly on what they will allow in terms of doron use. they don't want them going into people's roofs or colliding with passenger aircraft. host: salt lake city, utah. democrats line. caller: when the local police began doing their training on learning how to fly drones they decided to do it over and around my house. i'm an american. pretty soon there was buzzing on my roof. then i was kept awake at night. then they were spraying whet killer on my yard. both my dog and i were being sprayed. then, after that, they started playing the base of a subwoofer so i would hear boom, boom, boom

over my house. come to find out i was on prime real estate property. so the value of my house is going to go up two and a half times. so, there was a land grab for my whom. so instead of doing good training i was learning to fly airmaned vehicles, let's get her out of the neighborhood and also became let's grab her home and then it became let's abuse her and do sleep deprivation, pain with high frequency drones. this is just winning -- this is one example of because. guest: one of the areas that has yet to be worked out with drones is this idea of harassment and nuisance law.

it is an area of the law that is unclear. if a drone is hovering 200 feet above your back yard and making a buzzing noise is that a nuisance? what if it is 10 feet above your back yard? it is a whole sort of new area of the law where the law doesn't know how to deal with it because this is so new. host: jay stanley with us. a couple of recommendations they have as far as drone use is considered connection with winter, images collected only in crime investigations. usage policy determined by public, not pennsylvania you should be open to audits and oversight and not equipped with lethal or nonlethal weapons. it is collection of data and what is done with it afterwards. guest: that is where you want protections in place so we cannot have to worry that this technology will be a big brother in the sky. host: if if is a booming industry how down keep track of

that because we heard others mention technology often outpaces law. guest: there will be an enormous amount of information and probably uses for drones that are great that we all like. there is no reason we can't have our cake and eat it too and enjoy the benefits of brilliant people coming up with confidential ideas of how to use the technology. at the same time, putting the privacy concerns it rest so we don't have to worry about that. host: will there be a lot of civil lawsuits when it comes to this technology? guest: undoubtedly.

it sort of breaks existing categories of our jurisprudence and court rulings and the -- there will be questions about peeping toms, harassment, nuisance and privacy torts. you can see somebody if you feel like your privacy has been invaded. it is going to be a whole new area of the law and the courts will figure that out. but right now we know that the government is going to want to use it for surveillance and we can put in place protections in that area without overregulating or stopping innovation. host: lancaster, south carolina, democrat's line. ken. caller: i would like to state that we already live in a police state with the e-mail and big data base places in utah and you have got the drones flying above now and cameras in neighborhoods. another thing, i'm kind of nervous -- snowden, that leaker.

i'm reading a book about the secret wars of the c.i.a. and it is all the information they are saying he released he already printed in the back, the spy tapping, cables undercease and how we control egypt. guest: we are living in a time of revolutionary technology. we love technology. but it also has big implications for privacy and we are sort of in the middle of a bit of battle over the extent to which we will allow technology to take away our privacy. the caller mentioned the n.s.a. scandal and in some ways the issue with drones and n.s.a. are the same, which is are we as a country become to allow the government to record everything that everybody does just in case you might have happened it commit a crime? if you come to the attention of

the government they can play a rewind of your life and see who you have called and where you have been and where you have driven your car and so forth. our view is that is too much power to give to the government. too much power of the government over individuals and violates our oldest traditions and we should not allow the government to use these new technologies that way. host: if i'm hearing you correctly, it seems like let's see where the technology goes and consider what regulatory efforts we have it make. guest: in some areas, yes. in other areas no. we call for regulations on drones in the area of law enforcement. in the area of private sector use that is where we think we need to stand back a little bit,

see where innovation goes. there are potential invasions. i don't think most people would want a google camera over their back yard any more than they would want a federal agency camera hanging over them. but let's see what happens in the private sector because private companies also are responding to customer concerns. they have reputations. so there may be problems, there may not be. we have not called for regulation in the private sector but we think regulation is needed when it comes to the government. host: what happens when it gets cheaper to purchase and more common use comes out of it? guest: that will happen to both the government and individuals. the government has spent millions for a helicopter and now for $50,000 today who knows how much with moore's law tomorrow they may be able to get a drone for $100 and get huge fleets of them and have them up 24-7 taking turns and individuals. we already -- the hobby community is huge and we are seeing innovation. host: do they have regulation, hobbyists?

guest: the way the f.a.a. regulates drones is sort of an exception. under the current rule if you have your own drone with a camera you can fly it around under 400 feet in daytime not near congested areas. but if you take photographs and sell the photographs, that is not legal because it is banned for commercial use. so if you are doing it for fun it is legal but commercial use it is not. this is a rule a lot of people complained about. that is the state of the law. host: call from leroy on the democrats line from new jersey. caller: one of your answers was what if the government privatizes those situations? right now most of the cameras in this area are run by private companies who make a profit on it. that would be a very good loophole to slip through, just slip it to privatization.

guest: i think that is an excellent points. i wrote a report in 2003 called the surveillance industrial complex that looked at how private sector surveillance and government surveillance have dove tailed and reinforced each other. we see that and federal agencies and government agencies using the private sector as an end run around constitutional protections. for example, f.b.i. and federal agencies are not allowed to keep dossiers and files on you because they want to. you have to be have a nexus to a criminal investigation. but they have data aggregators who do keep files on americans. they claim they have files on most americans and store as much information as they can about you and sell them to marketers. they are also selling them to the government so the government is not keeping a file but the companies are and the government

base the file. this is a big privacy problem that needs it be addressed. one thing that drones are doing is it has received so much attention and it is such a concrete interesting area it is raising the issue of privacy and people realize it is not just drones but other things, other technologies where privacy is under assault. we need to put in place good privacy protections. we need them to preserve the heritage that americans have always had. host: last call from victorville, california. duke on the independent line. caller: i was calling to -- you were talking about domestic drones up to now. are you going to have any control or is the legislature going to have any control over the military weaponized drones? >> the overseas use of drones has been a hugely controversial

topic. we have been involved in that somewhat, for example having a lawsuit where the government has sought to use drones to kill american citizens without trial. but i think that one of the things that has americans so concerns about domestic drones is overseas use they have seen and part of a larger trend which is called the green to blue pipeline where we see advanced technology deployed for overseas battlefield and military use and when the wars wind down the companies need new markets so they see 30,000 or so police agencies in the u.s. as a big market. police departments are becoming increasingly militarized in america and it is a problem in adopting military technology that often leads to excessive use of force and drones may be part of the trend. host: jay stanley speech praoeufrps and technology project and editor of the aclu east free future blog. guest: that is a blog on privacy

and technology issues and implications. we look at new technology and that have the potential to be used for surveillance or spying and what we think ought to happen with them. we will take au. look at some of the other rogue rents coming up on c-span including "newsmakers." he talks about lobbying and some of the grassroots efforts that he is conducting including immigration legislation. we will take a look at preview -- at a preview. >> in this environment is dairy difficult to handle immigration the way we should do, by passing pieces of legislation and think we need to get the border secure. betweena discrepancy mean

labor supply and demand. you have all the economic benefits that people are talking about. this is the position we support. unfortunately, the moment something passes the house there is the pressure on immigration which had dissipated over the past couple of months. >> you can watch the entire interview tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. is thatis interesting once you have that title, even if it is a short title, even if you have been voted out after one time, you can stay in washington as a former congressman. that itself is marketable. you are in the club.

is a striking departure from the days in which people will come to washington to serve, serve a little bit and then go back to the farm. that is how the founders had intended. there is a new dynamic year. a lot starts with money and the resources available for people who do very well. >> an insiders look at the business of government, politics and media and washington. >> next, it look at the future of the pentagon. we will hear from ashton carter davids interviewed by singer. they talk about the shift from the wars in afghanistan to age and cybersecurity. they spoke at the annual aspen security form for about one hour.

>> thank you, walter, ash, for joining us. thank you for letting us go through the hardships of leaving 97-degree weather in washington to come out here. you do not mind if we stay this month and next month, do you? it is wonderful to be here with the deputy secretary of defense, an old friend of many years. i will not say how many. somebody told me first came to the aspen institute to study charged particles and what else? >> the early days of the higgs boson. >> he asked if in the first 40 minutes he could do a small slide presentation.

[laughter] we asked his security team to put a bullet through the projector. let's dive right in. we're going to have a fairly broad conversation about where you are in the pentagon, the pivot to asia, drones, and so on. we are ourselves out an incredible pivot point. you ended one war and are rapidly exiting a second. you are thinking about exiting even more rapidly than you?ve admitted to. you are facing sequester cuts. i want to know how you manage the pivot. what are the opportunities and risks? what do we need to be invested

in? >> that is our daily preoccupation. you are right. we are far from washington. in washington, everyone is focused on the budget. that is important because we are undergoing a reduction in the defense budget that is as large and as deep as the post-vietnam and post-cold war reduction. it is large and consequential. i can get to that later. you started on the right note. the other huge transition before us is the transition from the first 9/11 decade, which was characterized by two wars in two particular places, of one particular kind, mainly counterinsurgency. also, the first post-9/11 decade

of wrestling with the counter- terrorism problem. those were the rivoting, defining, daily preoccupations. you cannot be any other way when you have responsibility in the department of defense and you have troops at war. i spent an enormous amount of my time on afghanistan. i still and will for some time to come simply because we have people there. at the same time, we all know that era is coming to an end. we need to turn our minds and eyes from the set of problems to the opportunities and challenges that are going to define our future. that is the titanic transition

we're trying to make the department of defense under go right now. what does that mean? first of all, we need to get back to some issues we have taken our eye off of a bit over the last decade. countering weapons of mass destruction is one of those. we need to get back to from a military point of view some areas of warfare where potential opponents have crept up on us over the last 10 years. we need to reinvest and get back in the game. more on that later. we need to do new things in counterterrorism. we also have some opportunities, huge opportunities. the biggest one you mentioned is to shift the great weight of our institution that has focused intellectually and physically for 10 years on iraq and

afghanistan to a part of the world is going to define the american future. that is the asia pacific theater. you will see that happening. you will see that in terms of troops there. you will see it in terms of aircraft there. you will see it in terms of ships there. investments made, of particular importance to the theater. a new bomber, for example. a new variant of the virginia submarine and some space and other things we do not talk about because we hope they take people by surprise. that is just the military dimension of a shift that has a politico-military dimension with our reinvigorating our alliance with japan. everybody knows china is a rising military power. japan is the rise in military

power in east asia also. south korea, the countries of southeast asia. our old friends like australia and thailand on to india, which is a natural security partner for the united states for a variety of reasons. we're trying to turn our attention to the asia-pacific theater. this is the kind of strategic transition we are trying to manage. at the same time, we're having this enormous budget reduction. you look at the new capabilities and problems. i mentioned a number of them. one of great importance is cyber. we are making new investments in cyber as well.

all in all, this is a moment in the history of your department of defense not seen since the wall fell in 1989 in terms of the need for us to do things differently. we do understand that. we understand people want us to spend less money. more importantly, they want us to spend it better and smarter. we understand that. we also understand the country needs us to shift our attention away from iraq and afghanistan and the first counter-terrorism decade. the next decade will be different from the first decade in many ways. >> let me pull on one string of what you have described. we will have general alexander later. along the way, one of the big new initiatives you have put in place with him are what he described to congress recently as 40 new cyber team is working under cyber command, which is the military side of his job. he said 27 of them were for defense. 13 were for offense. this comes before we even have a general discussion about whether you want the department of defense in the business of cyber offense. tell us about what these cyber teams are supposed to do, what

their mission is, how much all of this costs, whether it is expensive or inexpensive compared to the other things you are doing, and how you get the conversation going on offensive cyber. >> very important. i divide the mission of cyber of in the department of defense into three pieces.

the first and most important piece for us is to defend our own networks, the integrity of our own networks, because everything we do depends upon the use of information systems, including ones connected to the internet. 10 years ago, he would not have seen it except at a command level command post. now you go to a company command post. it consists of eight or 10 screens. they are all checking with other units around them. they are getting satellite feeds. they are getting intelligence product. they're getting information from other units. we depend on that everywhere in the world. if we lose that, we think about

what would do in that instance. we think about operating through the loss of connectivity, but is not good if it happens. job one is protecting the integrity of our networks. therein enters snowden and we can get to that in a little bit. the next thing is to deploy in the preparation for our own cyber capabilities to nullify the cyber advantage on the part of others. you are right. that is something worth talking about. i will tell you some of the tricky issues associated with that. the new field of warfare, obviously we want to do things in a way that is lawful and our population can support and is

consistent with our values. the tricky things that come into cyber is privacy. it is things like, are you sure a particular action you take with an enemy's information system will only have the consequence of disrupting an air defense system? and not have water consequences? you have to understand the consequences of your actions. the authorities to do this, these things are serious enough to reserve for the president. we have thought these through. we are thinking them through. it is fair game for a wider

conversation. the third thing we do is play our role in defending the nation's networks. i say our role in because we do not have the lead. we support law enforcement and homeland security. we tried to support them. our principal source of support is the national security agency. we manage. that is a capability i am responsible for on behalf of all of these other agencies of government that use it. >> is that where the 40 teams come in? >> the 40 teams are new and in addition to the existing cyber workforce which is mostly oriented towards cyber intelligence collection. we are trying to create another set of people also associated with nsa whose mission is defense, the development of capabilities for the u.s. military, and played an important role in defense of the nation. the defense of the nation is a business which many of you participate in is very important.

government can and needs to help. another thing that has to happen is many of the civil networks are so poorly protected themselves that it is very difficult for us to claim we can come to their aid. they need to be protected themselves first. that gets too much bigger problem in our society. that is that cyber security is under-invested in. there is a market failure in the cyber-security field. those of you who have products to market, it is a hard slog. a lot of people do not want to spend a lot of money and acknowledge they have a problem. a lot of our critical businesses are more global than they should be.

what should happen is they should take the steps to harden themselves. that is more important than us rendering a, which we are prepared to do as we defend the rest of the country. >> of these 40 teams, give us a sense of the size. it sounds closest to the model of special operations. you have a highly trained group. are we talking thousands of people? >> we have thousands spread among the teams. i am starting that way because we're drawing people in from the services we already have. it, like special operations people, are hard to find and grow. it requires a lot of talent, a considerable amount of experience. as we always do when we have high skill areas, we have to

worry about how long we can keep them before they go off to companies and so forth. we are starting this way because i want to start fast. we are taking the people we have an slowly growing the new people we need. that is the management strategy. we're starting off with these three teams. i do not rule of that we will change our approach. i may take a different approach down the road and do things more like the model. but we are not starting there yet because we need to get started. we have got to get going. you mentioned money. this is not expensive. this is not a money problem for me.

this is a management problem. it does not cost a lot. we're spending everything we can think about spending intelligently notwithstanding our budget hassles because this is an area we're protecting even as other military capabilities will be cut. >> let's turn to sequester. a year ago, you and i were talking about sequester. you said two things. first, i do not think it will happen. second, i do not want to plan for it happening because if the word gets out that you are planning for it, you are making it easier for it to happen. i think you added to it, i cannot believe we would ever do anything quite this dumb. what has happened a year later? >> that part is right.

i could not believe you would do something that down. the second part is not so right. of course we planned. it turned out to be easier than you might think to plan for sequester because sequester, by its nature, gives you very little choice. you have to cut here and here by this much. there is less planning to it than there might be if you were just told to take the cut and do what ever you want, which i would dearly love, but we do not have that kind of flexibility. we were ready. but the second thing is i did not take action until it became clear the budget deal collapsed at the end of the year. that is because the things we do under sequester are harmful.

i was not going to do anything harmful to our defense until it became clear -- i do not think any man or woman would have thought we would topple off of this cliff. i did not want to do harmful things until january 1. we were ready, but we did not begin taking management action until the deal collapsed because the actions we're taking are so harmful. let me tell you why is so difficult to deal with. we are doing our very best everyday to do the best we can buy our defense, given the circumstances. we are trying very hard to get through this and get a sensible result. let me tell you why things work out so badly.

our budget has three pieces. it has people, an operating budget, and investment. let's start with the people. i have got to take money out of those three pots. i cannot take money out of people just like that because i can involuntarily separate people in uniform. but it turns out it costs me almost as much to put them on the path to involuntary separations over the path of the year as it does to just pay them. you do not save much money in the process. what a company might do it faced with a budget cut is to dramatically said people. that is not something we are able to do. therefore, because it falls into

the other parts. the operations and investments. what do we do there? in operations, have to take the i cannot short nuclear deterrence we cannot be unready as a nuclear force. the presidential airplane needs to keep flying and so forth. there are certain things you take off of the table. the bill gets squeezed into the rest. what happens as a result is the cuts end up not spread out all over the entire defense budget but bulged into a few areas. the two areas that are most painful are training, readiness, and our civilian people getting furloughed, a terrible thing to do to them.